English 
Italiano The EU General Court (T-406/24, judgment of 24 September 2025) has confirmed the invalidity of the European Union Trademark PriSecco, registered for “Cocktails, non-alcoholic’, as evocative of PDO “Prosecco”, registered for wines.
The General Court has agreed the opinion of the Board of Appeal, for which the word PriSecco evoked PDO Prosecco within the meaning of Article 103(2)(b) of Regulation n. 1308/2013, according to which:
“A protected designation of origin and a protected geographical indication, as well as the wine using that protected name in conformity with the product specifications, shall be protected against:
b) any misuse, imitation or evocation, even if the true origin of the product or service is indicated or if the protected name is translated, transcripted or transliterated or accompanied by an epression such as “style”, “type”, “method”, “as produced in”, “imitation”, “flavour”, “like” or similar”
In this judgment the General Court emphasized that:
“It should be noted that the contested sign PriSecco contains, in the same order, the same letters as the name protected by the PDO Prosecco, with the exception of the third letter, which is an “i” instead of an “o”. It follows that the PDO Prosecco is almost completely embedded in the contested sign. That incorporation forms part of the high degree of visual and phonetic similarity between the signs at issue, correctly found by the Board of Appeal”
(paragraph 45).
As for the respective products, the Board of Appeal found a similarity between the wines protected by the PDO Prosecco and the non-alcoholic cocktails covered by the trademark PriSecco, given both from their method of consumption (both commonly consumed in society, in particular as aperitifs or accompanying dishes serving during meals) and from their method of marketing and distribution (displayed side by side in the food sections of supermarkets and in bars and cafés).
The General Court, however, clarifies that
“even assuming that the goods at issue are not similar, as the applicatn submits, it must be pointed out that it is possible to find an “evocation” within the meaning of Article 103(2)(b) of Regulation No 1308/2013 even where there is no similarity between the goods concerned
(judgment of 9 September 2021, Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne, C‑783/19, EU:C:2021:713, paragraph 61).In the circumstances of the present case, given the fact that the goods at issue are beverages, with the result that they may have a similar appearance, the partial incorporation of the PDO Prosecco in the contested mark and their high degree of visual and phonetic similarity are sufficient, in accordance with the case-law cited in paragraphs 38 to 42 above, to justify a finding of evocation.”
(paragraph 48)
Did you find this article interesting? Share it!