关于知识产权 知识产权培训 树立尊重知识产权的风尚 知识产权外联 部门知识产权 知识产权和热点议题 特定领域知识产权 专利和技术信息 商标信息 工业品外观设计信息 地理标志信息 植物品种信息(UPOV) 知识产权法律、条约和判决 知识产权资源 知识产权报告 专利保护 商标保护 工业品外观设计保护 地理标志保护 植物品种保护(UPOV) 知识产权争议解决 知识产权局业务解决方案 知识产权服务缴费 谈判与决策 发展合作 创新支持 公私伙伴关系 人工智能工具和服务 组织简介 与产权组织合作 问责制 专利 商标 工业品外观设计 地理标志 版权 商业秘密 WIPO学院 讲习班和研讨会 知识产权执法 WIPO ALERT 宣传 世界知识产权日 WIPO杂志 案例研究和成功故事 知识产权新闻 产权组织奖 企业 高校 土著人民 司法机构 遗传资源、传统知识和传统文化表现形式 经济学 金融 无形资产 性别平等 全球卫生 气候变化 竞争政策 可持续发展目标 前沿技术 移动应用 体育 旅游 PATENTSCOPE 专利分析 国际专利分类 ARDI - 研究促进创新 ASPI - 专业化专利信息 全球品牌数据库 马德里监视器 Article 6ter Express数据库 尼斯分类 维也纳分类 全球外观设计数据库 国际外观设计公报 Hague Express数据库 洛迦诺分类 Lisbon Express数据库 全球品牌数据库地理标志信息 PLUTO植物品种数据库 GENIE数据库 产权组织管理的条约 WIPO Lex - 知识产权法律、条约和判决 产权组织标准 知识产权统计 WIPO Pearl(术语) 产权组织出版物 国家知识产权概况 产权组织知识中心 产权组织技术趋势 全球创新指数 世界知识产权报告 PCT - 国际专利体系 ePCT 布达佩斯 - 国际微生物保藏体系 马德里 - 国际商标体系 eMadrid 第六条之三(徽章、旗帜、国徽) 海牙 - 国际外观设计体系 eHague 里斯本 - 国际地理标志体系 eLisbon UPOV PRISMA UPOV e-PVP Administration UPOV e-PVP DUS Exchange 调解 仲裁 专家裁决 域名争议 检索和审查集中式接入(CASE) 数字查询服务(DAS) WIPO Pay 产权组织往来账户 产权组织各大会 常设委员会 会议日历 WIPO Webcast 产权组织正式文件 发展议程 技术援助 知识产权培训机构 COVID-19支持 国家知识产权战略 政策和立法咨询 合作枢纽 技术与创新支持中心(TISC) 技术转移 发明人援助计划(IAP) WIPO GREEN 产权组织的PAT-INFORMED 无障碍图书联合会 产权组织服务创作者 WIPO Translate 语音转文字 分类助手 成员国 观察员 总干事 部门活动 驻外办事处 职位空缺 采购 成果和预算 财务报告 监督
Arabic English Spanish French Russian Chinese
法律 条约 判决 按管辖区浏览

WIPO Lex

WIPOLEX008-j

返回

High Court of Singapore (General Division) [2022]: Australian Grape and Wine Inc v Consorzio di Tutela della Denominazione di Origine Controllata Prosecco [2022] SGHC 33

 Session 3: Emerging Issues in Geographical Indications

This is an informal case summary prepared for the purposes of facilitating exchange during the 2023 WIPO IP Judges Forum.

Session 3: Emerging Issues in Geographical Indications

High Court of Singapore (General Division) [2022]: Australian Grape and Wine Inc v Consorzio di Tutela della Denominazione di Origine Controllata Prosecco [2022] SGHC 33

Date of judgment: February 23, 2022
Issuing authority: High Court of Singapore (General Division)
Level of the issuing authority: First judicial instance [on appeal from an administrative decision]
Type of procedure: Judicial (Civin( �br> Subject matter: Geographical Indications
Opponent/Appellant: Australian Grape and Wine Inc
Applicant/Respondent: Consorzio di Tutela della Denominazione di Origine Controllata Prosecco
Keywords: Geographical indications, Opposition to registration, Likely to mislead consumer as to origin

Basic facts: The appeal arises out of an application (“the Application”) made by the Consorzio di Tutela della Denominazione di Origine Controllata Prosecco (“the Consorzio”) to register “Prosecco” as a GI denoting wine originating from a specified region in Northern Italy (“the Application GI”).

The Consorzio is a consortium established and organised under the laws of Italy, and is responsible for protecting, promoting, marketing and generally overseeing the use of the term “Prosecco”. On May 3, 2019, it applied to register “Prosecco” as a GI in respect of wines in Singapore. The claimed geographical area for the production of “Prosecco” wines was “the North East region of Italy, and include[d] the entire territory of Belluno, Gorizia, Padova, Pordenone, Treviso, Trieste, Udine, Venice and Vicenza” (“the Specified Region”). The Application GI was accepted and published in the Geographical Indications Journal on June 21, 2019.

Australian Grape and Wine Incorporated (AGWI) is the representative body for grape growers and winemakers in Australia. On September 9, 2019, AGWI filed a notice of opposition against the registration of the Application GI. It is not disputed that Italian “Prosecco” wines have a longer history of local distribution. Australian “Prosecco” wines have been available in Singapore, albeit in smaller quantities, since at least 2015. The Consorzio asserts that “Prosecco” has been used in Singapore as a geographical indication for the Specified Region since at least 2010.

AGWI relied on two grounds in its opposition to the registration: first, section 41(1)(a) of the Geographical Indications Act (GIA), which prohibits registration of indications that do not fall within the meaning of “geographical indication” as defined in section 2(1) of the GIA; and second, section 41(1)(f) of the GIA, prohibiting registration of indications that contain the name of a plant variety and are likely to mislead the consumer as to the true origin of the product.

On May 4, 2021, the Principal Assistant Registrar (PAR), disagreeing on both grounds, dismissed AGWI’s opposition and ordered that the Application GI should proceed to registration. The PAR’s Full Grounds of Decision were issued on August 12, 2021. On September 6, 2021, AGWI applied for the PAR’s decision disallowing its opposition to the Application GI to be reversed.

Held: The High Court allowed AGWI’s appeal on the basis of section 41(1)(f) of the Geographical Indications Act, noting that sections 41(1)(f) and 41(1)(a) of the GIA are disjunctive and independent grounds for the refusal of registration.

Relevant holdings in relation to emerging issues in geographical indications: The High Court held that the PAR was correct to find that “Prosecco” was the name of a grape variety when the Application was filed (“the Relevant Date”), in view of the extensive evidence adduced by AGWI in support of this proposition. In particular, wine traders in Singapore consistently referred to “Prosecco” as the name of a grape variety. Although much of the material AGWI relied on came from sources outside Singapore, this material nevertheless provided evidence that “Prosecco” was, as a matter of fact, the name of a grape variety as at the Relevant Date. Accordingly, the High Court found that the Application GI contained the name of a plant variety for the purposes of the first limb of section 41(1)(f) of the GIA.

Regarding whether the Application GI was likely to mislead the consumer as to the true origin of the product, the High Court considered the relevant question to be whether the Application GI was likely to mislead consumers into thinking that “Prosecco” wines could only originate from the Specified Region, when in fact their true origin could be other geographical locations where the “Prosecco” grape variety was used to make wines. The High Court agreed with AGWI that the Application GI, containing as it did the name of a grape variety, would be misleading if “Prosecco” grapes had been cultivated and “Prosecco” wines produced in significant or commercial quantities outside the Specified Region. Further, the High Court was satisfied that as at the Relevant Date, “Prosecco” grapes were being cultivated and “Prosecco” wines were being produced in commercial quantities in countries such as Australia, as found by the PAR. Thus, the High Court held that consumers were likely to be misled by the Application GI into thinking that all “Prosecco” wines originated from the Specified Region in Italy, when in fact some “Prosecco” wines originated from Australia.

Regarding whether the ground for refusal of registration in section 41(1)(a) of the GIA was established, the High Court deemed the crucial issue to be whether “a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of the goods is essentially attributable to that place,” as required in limb (b) of the definition of a “geographical indication” in section 2(1) of the GIA. Having proffered no factual evidence to support its assertion that the sole unifying factor in the wines in the market marked as “Prosecco” was their grape variety, the High Court held that AGWI did not produce sufficient evidence to satisfy its burden of proof on this limb.

Relevant legislation:
Geographical Indications Act 2014 (Act 19 of 2014)
Order 55 of the Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed)
Rule 7 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Geographical Indications) Rules 2019 (S 706/2019)