84 WINE LAW for the later trademark’s refusal or invalidity3. Such a straightforward “first come, first served” approach cannot be applied in connection with geographical indications as these are not arbitrarily chosen, referring instead to a distinct geographical area from which the relevant products originate and have often been in use to describe these products for a long time. Where products of the same kind originate from different geographical regions with similar names (e.g., situated along a river running through several countries), homonymous geographical indications occur4. These can also arise if a term protected in one country as a geographical indication (or its linguistic equivalent) is used in another country as a generic expression for the same type of product, regardless of its geographical origin5. In the wine sector, an additional layer of complexity is introduced by customary names of wine grape varieties, which are sometimes used in the labelling of wine produced from the specific variety to indicate the wine’s type or characteristics. Varietal wines, such as Cabernet Sauvignon, Chardonnay and Merlot, are named after the dominant grape variety from which they are produced, rather than the territory from which they originate6. However, the names of certain grape varieties correspond to geographical indications for wine, which again raises the issue of homonymy where these names are used as an indication of a varietal wine. This paper will first present the general rules concerning homonymous geographical indications under the relevant international conventions and in the European Union law, followed by an examination of the specific rules of wine law concerning the permissibility of using customary names of grape varieties in wine labelling. Finally, we look at the “Teran” case and see how the General Court’s ruling addressed the situation where the customary name of a grape variety is homonymous with a geographical indication for wine. 3 Article 6bis(1) of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property; Article 5(1) of the Trademarks Directive (EU) 2015/2436. 4 Possible Solutions for Conflicts between Trademarks and Geographical Indications and for Conflicts between Homonymous Geographical Indications, WIPO document SCT/5/3, 8 June 2000, paras. 55-56. 5 Geographical Indications and the Territoriality Principle, WIPO document SCT/9/5, 1 October 2002, para. 4. 6 J. Simpson, p. 292.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==