CELEX: 62015CA0075
Language: en
Date: 2016-01-21 00:00:00
Title: Case C-75/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Markkinaoikeus — Finland) — Viiniverla Oy v Sosiaali- ja terveysalan lupa- ja valvontavirasto (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of geographical indications of spirit drinks — Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 — Article 16(b) — Evocation — Cider spirits produced in Finland and placed on the market as ‘Verlados’ — Protected geographical indication ‘Calvados’)

14.3.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 98/16
            
         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Markkinaoikeus — Finland) — Viiniverla Oy v Sosiaali- ja terveysalan lupa- ja valvontavirasto
   (Case C-75/15) (1)
   
   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of geographical indications of spirit drinks - Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 - Article 16(b) - Evocation - Cider spirits produced in Finland and placed on the market as ‘Verlados’ - Protected geographical indication ‘Calvados’))
   (2016/C 098/20)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   
      Referring court
   
   Markkinaoikeus
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Viiniverla Oy
   
      Defendant: Sosiaali- ja terveysalan lupa- ja valvontavirasto
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Article 16(b) of Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 on the definition, description, presentation, labelling and the protection of geographical indications of spirit drinks and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to assess whether there is an ‘evocation’ within the meaning of that provision, the national court is required to refer to the perception of the average consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, that concept being understood as covering European consumers and not only consumers of the Member State in which the product giving rise to the evocation of the protected geographical indication is manufactured.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Article 16(b) of Regulation No 110/2008 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to assess whether the name ‘Verlados’ constitutes an ‘evocation’ within the meaning of that provision of the protected geographical indication ‘Calvados’ with respect to similar products, the referring court must take into consideration the phonetic and visual relationship between those names and any evidence that may show that such a relationship is not fortuitous, so as 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.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Article 16(b) of Regulation No 110/2008 must be interpreted as meaning that the use of a name classified as an ‘evocation’ within the meaning of that provision of a geographical indication referred to in Annex III to that regulation may not be authorised, even in the absence of any likelihood of confusion.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.