The advocate of Port wine producers argued it could not—but the General Court of the European Union disagreed. In this case, the difference between wine and olive oil prevailed.

The Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto (IVDP) objected to the registration of “Quevedo Port” as an EU word mark for olive oil (Class 29), based on the Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) “Porto/Port” (for wine). The IVDP argued that using “Port” in the mark would amount to improper use of, or an association with, the PDO.

However, the Court ruled that the similarities between the signs were insufficient to constitute direct or indirect commercial use of the PDO “Porto/Port” for olive oil. The difference in product type was decisive: the average consumer would not associate olive oil with Port wine. Furthermore, “Port” can have other meanings, which further weakened any potential link to the protected wine designation. As a result, there was no abuse of the PDO or “evocation” (an indirect association with the wine “Port”). The General Court dismissed the IVDP’s appeal, and the EUIPO’s decision to allow the Quevedo Port trademark was upheld.

The ruling is striking. PDOs are usually broadly protected – even against use for services or entirely different products. Yet here, the Court adopted a stricter approach, focusing on the product differences rather than the potential perception of the consumer. That perception is often the deciding factor in other PDO-related cases.

Could the IVDP have prevented this outcome? Perhaps – by submitting consumer research showing that the public does in fact associate the term “Port” in this context with Port wine.