This article unpacks the ruling’s implications and contextualizes it within recent PDO case law, revealing both continuity and nuance in the EU’s approach to geographical indications.  

The case centered on Vinoquel – Vinhos Oscar Quevedo, Lda.'s application to register the word mark "Quevedo Port" for olive oil (Class 29) and wine (Class 33).  The IVDP, which is the body responsible for regulating the “Porto/Port” PDO for fortified wine, opposed the registration, arguing that the use of "Port" in the trademark infringed upon the PDO under Articles 103(2)(a)(ii) (exploitation of reputation) and 103(2)(b) (evocation) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.  

Court's Analysis

1. Similarity of Signs

The Court acknowledged that "Port" is entirely reproduced in "Quevedo Port." However, it emphasized that the addition of "Quevedo," a habitational surname, created a “logical and conceptual unit” distinct from the PDO. These conceptual differences would lead consumers to perceive “Quevedo Port” as a unique brand, not a wine reference, sufficient to prevent consumers from associating the trademark with the PDO.

2. Exploitation of Reputation

The Court found no evidence that the use of "Quevedo Port" for olive oil would exploit the reputation of the "Porto/Port" PDO. It highlighted the fundamental differences between olive oil and fortified wine, concluding that the products are not comparable in a manner that would lead to such exploitation.

3. Evocation

In EU trade mark law, "evocation" refers to a situation where a sign (such as a trademark or brand name), even if it does not directly use the exact protected term of a Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) or Protected Geographical Indication (PGI), triggers a mental association with that PDO or PGI in the mind of the average European consumer. Regarding the concept of evocation, the Court determined that there was no "sufficiently direct mental link" between "Quevedo Port" olive oil and Port wine. The mere inclusion of "Port" was insufficient, especially given the distinctiveness introduced by "Quevedo." 

Accordingly, the General Court dismissed IVDP’s appeal, allowing “Quevedo Port” for olive oil.

How the Quevedo Port ruling refines, but does not overturn, existing PDO jurisprudence. 

In the case of Champanillo (C-783/19), the ECJ found that “Champanillo” for tapas bars was evocative of Champagne, confirming that PDO protection can extend across goods and services if a “direct mental link” exists, even for unrelated goods/services.   By comparison, Quevedo provides a nuanced narrowing of this principle by emphasizing product category as a critical filter. The Quevedo judgement also shows a requirement for clearer evidence of consumer perception for unrelated goods. 

This builds upon the decision in Port Charlotte Whisky (C-478/07) which referred to the word “Port” in whisky trademark. In the Port Charlotte case, the ECJ held PDO regimes are exhaustive; and that national laws cannot expand their protection. The Quevedo case reinforces the Port Charlotte case’s principle that PDOs cannot block trademarks in unrelated sectors without concrete harm.

The Quevedo Port judgment therefore delineates more clearly the boundaries of PDO protection in the context of trademark registrations for unrelated products. By emphasizing the significance of distinctive elements and product category differences, the EU General Court has set a precedent that balances the rights of PDO holders with the interests of trademark applicants seeking to diversify their brand portfolios.

Future Impact? 

The Quevedo ruling may influence the CJEU's interpretation in the upcoming questions referred to the CJEU by the Italian Supreme Court :

• Does Article 43.2 of Regulation (EC) No. 479/2008 apply to PDO registrations for wine designations that existed prior to the regulation's entry into force, such as the "Salaparuta" PDO?
• If previous legislation applies, can subsequent PDOs be invalidated or lose protection under the general principle of non-deception for distinctive signs?

The Quevedo reasoning could be relevant in assessing whether the "Salaparuta" PDO misleads consumers in light of the pre-existing trade mark. The emphasis on consumer perception and product differentiation may inform the CJEU's approach.

Strategic Takeaways: 

For PDO Holders

• Assessing how the average consumer perceives the trademark in relation to the PDO is essential in determining potential infringement.
• Focus on evidence (such as consumer surveys) to prove “direct mental links” in cross-category disputes.  

For Applicants

• Incorporate distinctive elements, and avoid PDO terms for goods/services even outside the PDO’s scope.  

• Significant differences between product categories (e.g., olive oil vs. fortified wine) can mitigate concerns over exploitation or evocation of a PDO.

   

Conclusion: A Balanced Approach to PDO Protection

The Quevedo Port decision reaffirms core PDO principles while introducing critical nuances. By prioritizing product dissimilarity and distinctiveness, the ruling offers clarity for producers diversifying into non-competing markets. Yet, as Champanillo and other cases show, evocation risks remain context-dependent. For now, the message is clear: consumer perception and product nature are critical in EU PDO disputes.  For PDO holders, this decision underscores the importance of providing concrete evidence when opposing trademarks, especially when the goods or services differ from those covered by the PDO.