Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 21 DECEMBER 2021

WTR: A Tasty "No" To Champagne Bars

Rouse
Explore more from Rouse

Capitalizing on the recent preliminary ruling issued by the European Court of Justice in favor of "Champagne" against "Champanillo" according to which the concept of ‘evocation'...

GlobalIntellectual Property
Fabrice Mattei
Fabrice Mattei
Author LinkedIn connections

Fabrice Mattei and Marie-Anne Humbert Genand, Legal department Head of the CIVC, co-write article published in WTR

Capitalizing on the recent preliminary ruling issued by the European Court of Justice in favor of "Champagne" against "Champanillo" according to which the concept of 'evocation', within the meaning of EU legislations, does not require that the product covered by "Champagne" and the product or service covered by "Champanillo" be identical or similar" (Judgment in Case C-783/19), two recent oppositions filed in Thailand, the Comité Interprofessionnel du vin de Champagne (CIVC) and the Institut National de l'Origine et de la Qualité (INAO) have successfully enforced "Champagne" against marks containing the term "Champagne" for bar and restaurant. The two decisions of the Thai DIP are triple win to the CIVC and more generally to GI owners strengthening the legal arsenal to rely against deceptive practices and parasitic behaviors:

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Closing The Gap: A Reform Blueprint For Addressing Bad-Faith Trademark Registration In Thailand

Thailand’s first-to-file trademark system has a serious vulnerability: it lacks both an explicit mechanism for refusing bad-faith registrations and any means of invalidating them in court after the five-year limitation period has expired. While brand owners worldwide confront trademark squatting, Thailand’s statutory silence stands out, particularly in light of AIPPI’s 2017 Resolution Q249, which recommended that every jurisdiction provide clear tools to address bad faith at all stages of the trademark lifecycle.
GlobalIntellectual Property
Tilleke & Gibbins
Tilleke & Gibbins
Article

Thailand–China IP Enforcement MOU Enhances Cross-Border Protection In The E-commerce Era

Thailand and China have a longstanding and significant trade relationship, which increasingly extends to e-commerce and digitally enabled supply chains. While these channels create new opportunities for businesses to reach consumers across borders, their growth also brings greater exposure to intellectual property (IP) infringement across jurisdictions and online platforms.
GlobalIntellectual Property
Tilleke & Gibbins
Tilleke & Gibbins
Article

泰国知识产权厅公布 2026 年知识产权申请数据概览 —— 商标与版权篇

Thailand's Department of Intellectual Property released comprehensive statistics for the first half of 2026, revealing significant growth in trademark applications and copyright registrations. With trademark filings reaching 28,507 cases and copyright registrations surging 62% year-over-year, the data underscores Thailand's increasingly active intellectual property landscape and the strategic importance of proactive brand protection in competitive sectors.
ThailandIntellectual Property
Rouse
Rouse
Article

Who Can Challenge Patent Validity As An “Interested Person” Under Thailand’s Patent Act?

Thailand's Patent Act reserves the right to initiate patent cancellation proceedings exclusively to "interested persons" or the public prosecutor, but the statute does not define who qualifies as an interested person. Through decades of Supreme Court jurisprudence, Thai courts have established that standing requires a direct commercial nexus between the challenger's activities and the patent's exclusive rights—mere regulatory oversight, derivative interests, or preparatory intentions are insufficient.
ThailandIntellectual Property
Tilleke & Gibbins
Tilleke & Gibbins