DESIGNATIONS OF ORIGIN WITHIN THE EU: LEGAL CHALLENGES 55 afforded a uniform and exhaustive protection system. It also argued that the trademark challenged did not make use of or invoke the protected names Porto or Port (the protection system of the registered name is specifically discussed further below). Subsequently, the ruling of the appeal was challenged before the General Court, the ruling of which appears to be somewhat inconsistent. In section 38 of the Port Charlotte 1 ruling, the Court states that, as far as the European Regulation scope is concerned, “the precise conditions and scope of that protection are laid down exclusively in” it. Moreover, according to section 41’s more explicit pronouncement: “It must accordingly be concluded that, as regards the scope of Regulation No 491/2009, Article 118m(1) and (2) governs, in a uniform and exclusive manner, both the authorisation of and limits to, and even the prohibition of, commercial use of the protected designations of origin and of the protected geographical indications under EU law, so that, in that specific context, there was no need for the Board of Appeal to apply the conditions for protection specifically established in the relevant rules of Portuguese law which were the basis for the entry of the appellations of origin ‘porto’ or ‘port’ in the E-Bacchus database”. Once the uniformity and exclusivity of European law are established, it may seem inconsistent that, further into the ruling, the Court argues that “that conclusion is without prejudice to the question (…) whether the protection under [European Regulation defining wine designations] may be supplemented by another system of protection under EU law which, for its part, includes protection based on rules of national law”. The relevance of the point in law disputed justifies that in the subsequent claim on appeal before the Second Chamber of the European Court (Case C-56/16 P), which would give rise to the judgement of 14 September 2017 (Port Charlotte 2), two more parties stepped in: the Commission supporting the claimant, the European Office, which, by that time, had been renamed EUIPO, and Portugal backing Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto’s position. The Court, on the advice of Spanish Advocate General Manuel Campos Sánchez-Bordona, overturned the judgement by the General Court. In overruling, the judgement brought before it, the European Court argues – as had the Advocate General in his33 – that, although the protection systems set up by the Regulation governing wine designations and the horizontal Regulation are not identical, they are, indeed, “essentially, the same in nature, since their objectives and characteristics were similar” (section 76). Interestingly, the judgement goes on to verify that the 33 See, specifically, sections 63-65 and 72 of his Opinion, presented on 18 May 2017.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==