Spirits. For spirits there is a special regime that has been codified since 2008 in Regulation 110/2008. The regulation provides for the protection of geographical indications for spirits, which are defined as alcoholic beverages having a minimum alcoholic strength of 15 %.
Geographical indications. Article 15 of the regulation indicates that geographical indication is an indication which identifies a spirit (i) as originating in the territory of a country, or a region or locality in that territory, (ii) where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of that spirit drink is essentially attributable to its geographical origin.
Examples. Well known examples of protected geographical indications for spirits are, for instance, Armagnac, cassis de Dijon, cognac, jenever, scotch whisky, Irish whisky or Swedish vodka.
Calvados v Verlados. In its judgement of 21 January 2016 in Viiniverla Oy (IPPT20160121) the Court of Justice held that to determine whether the name “Verlados” for a Finish cider spirit is a prohibited “evocation” under Regulation 110/2008 of the protected geographical indication “Calvados”, a court must take into consideration the phonetic and visual relationship between those names and any evidence that may show that such a relation is not fortuitous. Finally, the court is to ascertain whether, when the average European consumer, reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, is confronted with the name of a product, the image triggered in his mind is that of the product whose geographical indication is protected. In addition, the court rules that likelihood of confusion is not a criterion.
Scotch Whisky. In its judgment of 7 June 2018 in Scotch Whisky (IPPT20180607), the Court of Justice held that a prohibited “indirect commercial use” requires an identical or similar indication on the product. Simply invoking associations is not sufficient. When there is a prohibited “representation" or “false or misleading indication”, neither the context nor the fact that the actual origin of the product is indicated need to be taken into account because otherwise a ban would lose its effectiveness, according to the Court.
