GI Protection against Evocation in the EU - Assessment of the CJEU’s Interpretation and Comparison with Reputed European Trademark Protection

Owners of geographical indications (GIs) have the right to prohibit any GI evocation. The latest developments on this matter come from the Champanillo case (C-783/19), where the CJEU held that GI protection against evocation also extends to similar and dissimilar services. This ruling marked a further step in extending GI protection against evocation, 22 years after the first evocation case (Cambozola, C-87/97). Indeed, throughout its different cases, the CJEU has gone from an initial interpretation according to which a product’s name may evoke a GI to an interpretation under which any name, sign or figure of a dissimilar product or service may evoke a GI, even if there is no partial incorporation of the registered name. Today, one wonders whether the scope of GI protection against evocation is still in line with the object and rationale of GI protection. Chapters I and II of this Paper aim to answer this question by providing an analysis of the main CJEU’s rulings on evocation and an assessment of the current CJEU’s interpretation in light of the rationales and object of GI protection.The question also arises as to whether reputed European trademark protection is as broad as that of GI against evocation. The two protections have some similarities (they deal with reputation - GI’s reputation is always presumed -, offer the possibility to protect a name and indicate origin, and have similar conditions of protection), but do owners of reputed European trademarks enjoy as much protection as owners of GIs? The goal of Chapter III is to provide a comparison between the protection of reputed European trademarks and that of GIs.Chapter IV of this Paper finally provides elements for reflection by offering suggestions as to the limit of GI protection against evocation