What does olive oil have to do with wine? When a trademark containing a geographical indication can be registered | In Principle

A Portuguese company filed for trademark registration by the EUIPO of the word sign “Quevedo Port” for two products: olive oil and wine. Registration was opposed by an association of makers of Port wine, which is a protected denomination of origin. Nonetheless, the EUIPO properly registered the disputed mark. Why?

Organisations of producers of protected designations of origin or geographical indications primarily work to protect these terms, e.g. by monitoring the market and raising objections to any trademark applications filed later than the given geographical indication or which could infringe the designation. This right is vested in producer organisations by Art. 8(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 on the European Union trade mark. A recent example of exercise of this right is the judgment of the General Court (part of the Court of Justice of the European Union) of 26 February 2025 in Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto, IP (IVDP) v EUIPO (Case T-23/24), concerning the protected designation of origin Porto/Port, in opposition to trademark registration of the word sign “Quevedo Port.”

The mark was filed for registration with EUIPO by a Portuguese company as a designation for:

• Class 29, “Olive oils,” and
• Class 33, “Wine complying with the specifications of the protected designation of origin ‘Porto / Port / vinho do Porto / Port Wine / vin de Porto / Oporto / Portvin / Portwein / Portwijn.’”

The Port producers organisation IVDP filed opposition to the registration, based on the PDO “Porto/Port,” which has been registered in the EU since 1991 and can be used only for wines produced in compliance with the specifications from grapes harvested in the Douro Valley in northern Portugal.

Commercial use of geographical designations

Under Regulation (EU) 2024/1143 on geographical indications for wine, spirit drinks and agricultural products, as well as traditional specialities guaranteed and optional quality terms for agricultural products, “geographical indications” and “protected designations of origin” (referred to below collectively as “geographical indications”) are protected against any direct or indirect commercial use for comparable products that do not comply with the specifications for the products covered by the geographical indication.

If a product using a geographical indication is not comparable, then use of the geographical indication will be infringing if it exploits the reputation of the geographical indication. However, under the case law, the infringing mark must be used in a form that is phonetically and visually identical with that name, or at least highly similar, with such close links to the protected name that the disputed sign clearly cannot be dissociated from it. Under Art. 26(1)(a) of Regulation 2024/1143, exploitation of a geographical indication must be interpreted narrowly; otherwise it would constitute “evocation” of the protected name—a different type of infringement governed by Art. 26(1)(b) (discussed further below).

Therefore, even though the second word in the disputed mark is the name “Port,” this does not make it an infringing exploitation. Juxtaposing the disputed mark “Quevedo Port” and the protected name “Port,” the General Court found that the signs were visually and phonetically similar only “to an average degree.” The challenged mark comprises two words, where the first (Quevedo) is nearly twice as long as the second (Port) and has a distinguishing character, while the second word repeats verbatim the PDO “Port,” which serves a separate distinguishing function.

There was also a lack of conceptual similarity between the designations. The name “Port/Porto” on wine conveys a guarantee of quality due to the geographical origin of the product, but in the case of “Quevedo Port” the second word might be understood to refer to a port for ships. Then the word “Quevedo” could be perceived as the name of a harbour, a surname, or also a meaningless element—and thus “Quevedo Port” forms a logical and conceptual whole unrelated to the earlier PDO and its function as a guarantee of quality for wine.

The assessment of whether there is exploitation of a geographical indication and its reputation is strongly tied to the circumstances of the case and the designations being compared (i.e. the mark filed for registration and the opposing geographical indication). The case of Quevedo Port is an example showing that mere use in a mark of an element identical to a geographical indication does not necessarily constitute an infringing exploitation of the indication, if the disputed mark can have its own meaning and make up a logically separate whole.

This court contrasted this with the decision by the EUIPO Board of Appeal of 17 February 2023 (case no. R 531/2022-2) concerning the trademark “Nero Champagne.” In that case, the ruling was in favour of the holders of the PDO “Champagne,” because the disputed mark did not suggest any other associations and could not be ascribed any meaning other than a specific sparkling wine produced in the Champagne region of France.

Evocation? Not this time

IVDP’s allegation of infringement of the PDO by “evocation” also fell wide of the mark, as the products in question were not comparable or were entirely different. A product comparable to Port wine might be a wine of some other type, such as sparkling wine. But Port wine and olive oil differ in composition, appearance, smell and taste, as is well known to the average consumer, even a consumer unfamiliar with Mediterranean cuisine.

For this reason, even though the word “Port” is an integral part of the disputed mark, it is unlikely that the relevant public would perceive a clear and direct connection between the disputed mark and the wine protected by the earlier PDO, regardless of the reputation of that name.

Interestingly, in this case the court found that it was irrelevant that the disputed mark was filed for a different product (olive oil) and also for Port wine, which would suggest an intentional linking of these products by the applicant, and thus exploitation of the reputation of the PDO Porto/Port. The court found that the applicant’s intention was not relevant in assessing whether there was an evocation. The key was whether the consumer choosing the product bearing the disputed mark would immediately associate it with the PDO and ascribe to the product the renown enjoyed by the protected designation.

Pointers flowing from the judgment

In assessing whether there are barriers to registration of a trademark due to an earlier geographical indication, the EU authorities will take into consideration:

• Whether the products are comparable
• Whether the trademark and the geographical indication are similar enough to find direct or indirect commercial use of the geographical indication—if there is not a sufficient similarity and a close connection (i.e. so that a consumer could not distinguish them), then there is no commercial use for purposes of the EU provisions (Art. 103(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation 1308/2013, superseded by Art. 26(1)(a) of Regulation 2024/1143) and thus there is no exploitation of the reputation of the geographical indication
• Whether the entity relying on protection of a geographical indication has presented evidence and arguments showing that use of the disputed mark will result in exploitation of the reputation of the geographical indication (previous decisions by national regulators may not suffice, as the EUIPO is not bound by them)
• Whether the geographical indication has any other meanings (i.e. whether it can be interpreted differently, apart from associations with geographical origin)
• The context in which the designation is used—for example, olive oil has no obvious association with wine. The mere fact that two products bearing the same designation are produced or marketed by the same undertaking does not mean that consumers will perceive them as having shared characteristics.

The devil is in the details

This judgment from the General Court may seem surprising in light of the earlier case law from the EU and the broad protection given to geographical indications. It may appear to be a departure from the existing practice, but it confirms that decisions in this area are based on an analysis of meanings and concepts, and not determined solely by the literal presence of a protected designation within a trademark.

In this case, the decisive role was played by the specifics of the two juxtaposed products and the differences between them, as well as the nature and construction of the disputed trademark. Thus the judgment should not be interpreted as a warning to organisations working to protect geographical indications, nor as encouragement for businesses to freely use trademarks incorporating geographical indications.

Future rulings by EU authorities, which we will no doubt follow and report on in this portal, will show whether IVDP v EUIPO sets a new decisional approach.

Katarzyna Sotyn, adwokat, Intellectual Property practice, Wardyński & Partners