[Guest post] “Quevedo Port” for olive oil does not infringe PDO “Porto/Port”, rules EU General Court

The EU General Court ruled in a recent case involving the certifying body of the Port wine (Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto) and a Portuguese winery, Vinoquel Vinhos Oscar Quevedo, which sought registration of the “Quevedo Port” word mark for wine and olive oil.

In evaluating the infringement of the protected designation of origin (“PDO”) for the name “Porto/Port” (registered for wine), the General Court addressed a number of issues, including: the assessment of similarity between the two signs, the exploitation of the reputation of a PDO, and its evocation.

Port wine is a strong and sweet wine produced exclusively with grapes from the Douro region, in northern Portugal. Porto/Port has been registered as an EU PDO since 1991.

On April 26, 2021, Vinoquel Vinhos Oscar Quevedo (Vinoquel) filed an application for registration of an EU trade mark for the word “Quevedo Port” in respect of wine (complying with the specification of the PDO) in class 33 and olive oil in class 29.

Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto (Instituto) filed an opposition against Vinoquel’s trade mark application only with respect to olive oil and based on the Porto/Port earlier PDO registered for wine.

The opposition was rejected by the EUIPO Opposition Division and the appeal against this decision was also dismissed by the EUIPO Board of Appeal.

Instituto appealed to the EU General Court, claiming incorrect application of Arts. 103(2)(a)(ii) and 103(2)(b) of EU Regulation No. 1308/2013.

Arts. 103(2)(a)(ii) and 103(2)(b) grant PDOs protection against: 1) any direct or indirect commercial use of that protected name in so far as such use exploits the reputation of the PDO and 2) any evocation of the same.

The EU General Court dismissed Instituto’s action with judgment issued on February 26, 2025 (Case T-23/24).

The General Court began with the assessment of the degree of similarity between the signs “Port” and “Quevedo Port”. It agreed with the Board of Appeal that, although the element “Port” of the contested sign fully reproduced the earlier PDO, the first word element “Quevedo” of the same was almost twice as long and was in itself also distinctive. The General Court also added that the conceptual comparison between the two signs was not possible (or, even if it was, the signs could not be deemed conceptually similar) as the expression “Quevedo Port” is perceived as a whole, a “logical and conceptual unit” distinct from the concept of wine of quality due to its geographical provenance.

As a consequence, the General Court found that the degree of similarity between the signs at issue was insufficient to qualify the use of the contested sign as a “commercial use” pursuant to Art. 103(2)(a)(ii) of EU Regulation No. 1308/2013.

According to Instituto, it was very likely that English and Portuguese speakers would associate the contested sign with the protected name as various companies produce and sell wine and olive oil simultaneously. As such, the relevant public would be led to believe that olive oil shares the same quality standard and the same tradition as the port wine protected by the PDO.

That said, the General Court held that olive oil and wine are very different products and the fact that some companies market and/or affix the same marks to olive oil and wine does not prove the relevant public’s perception of common qualities, which may be connected with one or other or both of those products. As a result, this excluded that the use of the contested sign was capable of exploiting the reputation of the earlier PDO within the meaning of Art. 103(2)(a)(ii) of EU Regulation No. 1308/2013.

In order to establish an evocation of a PDO, the General Court agreed with the Board of Appeal that the decisive criterion is whether the image triggered in the relevant public’s mind when confronted with the contested sign is that of a product covered by the Porto/Port PDO. In conducting such an assessment, the elements to be taken into account include the visual and/or phonetic similarity between the signs and the partial incorporation of the name protected by the earlier PDO into the contested sign.

In the present case, however, the General Court found that the goods under comparison are completely different and, therefore, it is very unlikely that the relevant public would establish a clear and direct link between the contested sign and the wine protected by the earlier PDO (notwithstanding its reputation).

The General Court highlighted some of the significant differences between port wine and olive oil, e.g., the ingredients and the physical appearance and taste, adding that the average consumer is well aware of such differences regardless of their familiarity with the Mediterranean cuisine. Therefore, the use of the contested sign could not be deemed capable of evoking the earlier PDO pursuant to 103(2)(b) of EU Regulation No. 1308/2013.

Both the Board of Appeal and the General Court’s reasoning mainly focuses on the differences between olive oil and wine.

All this despite the Champanillo case (C-783/19) [IPKat here], where the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) made it clear that the concept of ‘evocation’ does not require that the products covered by the PDO and the products or services covered by the contested sign be identical or similar.

In 2020, the Board of Appeal found that the word “Champagnola” evoked the PDO “Champagne” notwithstanding the differences between the involved goods (bakeries v. sparkling wine). The decision highlighted that the average consumer cannot help but think of Champagne when confronted with a sign beginning with “Champagn-”.

However, the word “Port” does not only refer to the wine of the same name, but it might also be associated with the idea of a “harbour”. Moreover, the contested sign also included the word “Quevedo”, which has its own distinctiveness.

Perhaps the reasoning of the General Court would have shown greater consistency with EU case-law on evocation if it had emphasized more the consumer perception and less the differences between the products, whose relevance remains questionable.