Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
5.129
Rattee J held that there was no justification for ignoring the clearly expressed
requirement in Art 1(4)(b) of the Regulation that the 'spirit drink' concerned
should have undergone a process of maturation for at least three years after its
production as a liquid by distillation. The liquid produced by the defendant's
re-distillation process was not the same as the liquid which had undergone the
prior maturation process and it had not been subsequently matured. Therefore,
Glen Kella was not 'whisky' within the definition in Art 1(4)(b) of the
Regulation, and to sell it as whisky was in breach of the Regulation.
Following
Scotch Whisky Association v JD Vintners Ltd
,
31
the Court also observed
that as the purposes of the Regulation included not only the protection of the
consumer but also the maintenance of the quality of the products and the
protection of traders in those products from unfair competition from rival
traders, a producer was entitled to enforce the Regulation.
5.130
F.
'COGNAC'
In Joined Cases C-4/10 and C-27/10
Bureau national interprofessionnel du
Cognac v Gust. Ranin Oy
32
Gust. Ranin Oy applied to register in Finland two
figurative trade marks: HIENOA KONJAKKIA mark for 'cognac', and CAFÉ
COGNAC trade mark for 'liqueur including cognac'. The Bureau National
Interprofessionnel du Cognac ('BNIC') opposed the registration of both marks,
objecting to the use of the word 'Cognac' in the labels. The Finnish Patent and
Registration Office ('Patentti- ja rekisterihallitus') rejected the opposition
against the 'HIENOA KONJAKKIA' label, but accepted the opposition against
the 'CAFÉ COGNAC' label. The reason for the different result was due to the
legend 'Product of France' in the 'HIENOA KONJAKKIA' label, which was
considered to remove any misconception about the origin of the product. The
BNIC sought to annul the adverse decision. By a decision of 22 October 2007,
the Board of Appeal of the Finnish Patent and Registration Office (Patentti- ja
rekisterihallituksen valituslautakunta) dismissed the BNIC's appeal and upheld
the decision of 10 September 2004 confirming the registration of the
'HIENOA KONJAKKIA' mark. It also upheld the appeal brought by Gust.
Ranin Oy and set aside the decision cancelling the 'CAFÉ COGNAC'
registration.
5.131
In proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court ('Korkein hallinto-
oikeus') the BNIC sought the annulment of the decision of 22 October 2007 or
5.132
31
[1997] EuLR 446.
32
[2011] ETMR 53.
