Despite several letters and formal notices, INAO and CSA have had to summon an operator who markets sausages under a semi-figurative trademark evoking the protected geographical indication "Saucisson sec d'Auvergne / Saucisse sèche d'Auvergne", without the products benefiting from this SIQO. This trademark was registered in 1998 and has been regularly renewed ever since. It therefore preceded the registration of the PGI, which took effect in 2016. However, the recognition process was already well underway, and the operator concerned was fully aware of it. Indeed, it was initially a member of the group that initiated the PGI process, before withdrawing from it.

Protection confirmed in the face of an unlawful evocation

On April 5, 2022, the Lyon Judicial Court handed down a decision confirming the protection of the PGI in the face of a trademark registered prior to recognition by an operator involved in the process. The Court ruled that the filing of the trademark in this context could only be explained by the operator's desire to avoid the future, but certain, impossibility of using the name for products that would not have met the criteria of the future PGI, by securing protection that would give him exclusivity over a sign composed of the term "Auvergne". The trademark is therefore annulled on the grounds of fraud as regards products comparable to those covered by the PGI.

Although the labeling of the products specified that they did not benefit from any geographical designation, the Court also found that the presence of the term "Auvergne" in the trademark constituted an unlawful evocation of the PGI. It thus follows the rules of protection specified by the CJEU, which apply in respect of any evocation, even if the true origin of the products is indicated.

The coexistence of an earlier trademark with a GI, subject only to good faith

The decision is right in line with that handed down by the Lyon TGI in 2017 concerning the trademarks "Charolais des Gourmets" and "Mâconnais des Gourmets". The Court confirmed that the coexistence of prior trademarks with geographical indications is only possible if the applicant is acting in good faith at the time of filing. However, if the trademark owner is clearly and undoubtedly aware that the GI recognition application is being examined, good faith cannot be accepted and the application is considered fraudulent.

This decision is still subject to appeal.