Case C-75/15, Viiniverla – the ‘ados’ in Verlados does not evoke Calvados [judgment 2016, ECLI:EU:C:2016:35]

Spirit drinks can be protected in EU law on the basis of ‘geographical indication’. In this case, the question is whether the legal protection given to French ‘Calvados’ can require a Finnish apple-based spirit drink to be sold under a name other than ‘Verlados’.

Background
‘Calvados’ is a French spirit drink protected by EU laws governing ‘geographical indications’.

In light of this, a Finnish body decided in 2013 that a Finnish company should be stopped from selling an apple-based spirit drink called ‘Verlados’. When deciding this, the Finnish body recognised that the EU Commission had already dismissed Finland’s explanation as to why the drink was called Verlados, and that the EU Commission had explained that under EU law it was sufficient that the ‘ados’ in ‘Verlados’ evoked the word Calvados.

The decision of the Finnish body was challenged in a Finnish court. That court noted that the applicable EU legislation was Regulation 110/2008 on the definition, description, presentation, labelling and the protection of geographical indications of spirit drinks and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89 (OJ 2008 L39/16).

The relevant provision of the Regulation was Article 16, which governs the ‘Protection of geographical indications’ and provides:

“Without prejudice to Article 10, the geographical indications registered in Annex III shall be protected against:
a) …
b) any misuse, imitation or evocation, even if the true origin of the product is indicated or the geographical indication is used in translation or accompanied by an expression such as ‘like’, ‘type’, ‘style’, ‘made’, ‘flavour’ or any other similar term;…”

However, the Finnish court could not decide the case without knowing the correct interpretation which should be given to the word ‘evocation’.

The reason for the reference was that Article 16(b) is analogous to Article 13(1)(b) of the EU’s Regulation which protects geographic indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (Regulation No 2081/92), and that analogous provision has already been interpreted by the CJEU.

That is to say, in Case C-87/97, Consorzio per la Tutela del Formaggio Gorgonzola ECLI:EU:C:1999:115, the CJEU had reasoned:

25. ‘Evocation’, as referred to in Article 13(1)(b) of Regulation No 2081/92, covers a situation where the term used to designate a product incorporates part of a protected designation, so that when the consumer is confronted with the name of the product, the image triggered in his mind is that of the product whose designation is protected.

26. As the Advocate General states in points 37 and 38 of his Opinion, it is possible, contrary to the view taken by the defendants, for a protected designation to be evoked where there is no likelihood of confusion between the products concerned and even where no Community protection extends to the parts of that designation which are echoed in the term or terms at issue.

The CJEU in that case had also added:

29. Article 13(1)(b) of Regulation No 2081/92 also expressly provides that the indication of the true origin of the product on its packaging or otherwise has no bearing on the application to that product of the concepts referred to in that subparagraph.

Furthermore, the CJEU had also concluded:

27. Since the product at issue is a soft blue cheese which is not dissimilar in appearance to ‘Gorgonzola’, it would seem reasonable to conclude that a protected name is indeed evoked where the term used to designate that product ends in the same two syllables and contains the same number of syllables, with the result that the phonetic and visual similarity between the two terms is obvious.

Thus, when it came to Gorgonzola and Cambozola a shared ‘zo-la’ sufficed for a visual and phonetic evocation.

Questions Referred
The referring court’s website indicates these questions have been asked of the CJEU:

1. Onko arvioitaessa tislattujen alkoholijuomien määritelmistä, kuvauksesta, esittelystä, merkinnöistä ja maantieteellisten merkintöjen suojaamisesta sekä neuvoston asetuksen (ETY) N:o 1576/89 kumoamisesta 15.1.2008 annetun Euroopan parlamentin ja neuvoston asetuksen (EY) N:o 110/2008 (EUVL L 39, s. 16) 16 artiklan b alakohdassa tarkoitetun mielleyhtymän syntymistä käytettävä perusteena tavanomaisesti valistunutta, kohtuullisen tarkkaavaista ja huolellista keskivertokuluttajaa.

2. Arvioitaessa kansallisesti nimityksellä Verlados markkinoitavan omenasta tislatun väkevän alkoholijuoman mainitun nimityksen käytön kieltämistä maantieteellisen merkinnän Calvados suojaamiseksi, mitä merkitystä seuraavilla seikoilla on asetuksen N:o 110/2008 16 artiklan b alakohdassa tarkoitetun mielleyhtymän käsitteen tulkinnassa ja mainitun asetuksen soveltamisessa:

a. nimityksen Verlados alkuosa Verla on suomalainen kylä, jonka nimen suomalainen kuluttaja saattaa tunnistaa;
b. nimityksen Verlados alkuosa Verla viittaa Verlados-tuotteen valmistajaan Viiniverla Oy:öön;
c. Verlados on Verlan kylässä valmistettu paikallinen tuote, jota on myyty keskimäärin pari sataa litraa vuodessa tilan omassa ravintolassa ja lisäksi rajoitetusti tilauksesta alkoholilaissa tarkoitetussa valtion omistamassa alkoholiyhtiössä;
d. sanoissa Verlados ja Calvados on vain yksi yhteinen tavu (dos) kolmesta tavusta, mutta toisaalta sanojen viimeiset neljä kirjainta (ados) eli puolet kummankin sanan kaikista kirjaimista ovat samoja?

3. Jos asetuksen N:o 110/2008 16 artiklan b alakohdassa tarkoitetun mielleyhtymän katsotaan syntyvän, voidaanko nimityksen Verlados käyttö kuitenkin oikeuttaa jonkin edellä mainitun tai muun seikan perusteella, kuten sen seikan perusteella, ettei ainakaan suomalaiselle kuluttajalle voi syntyä sellaista käsitystä, että Verlados-tuote olisi valmistettu Ranskassa?

With the aid of a computerised translation from the Finnish, I understand the essence of Question 1 to be: When determining whether there is an evocation under Article 16(b) of Regulation 110/2008, is the starting point that of a normally informed and reasonably observant and circumspect average consumer?

The essence of Question 2 appears to be: Is there an evocation when the Verla in Verlados is a Finnish village recognised by Finnish consumers, and denotes a company that annually makes a couple of hundred litres of the product which is sold in one restaurant or to order, and where Verlados and Calvados share a ‘dos’ or an ‘ados’?

The essence of Question 3 is: If there is an evocation, then can its use be justified in light of any of the aforementioned circumstances; or indeed any other, such as Finnish consumers not thinking that the origin of Verlados was having been made in France?