casalonga logo

INPI - Bureau National Interprofessionnel du Cognac (BNIC) – oppositions based on the COGNAC geographical indication

Decision date

2025-12-30

Decision No.

OP24-1986 dated 2025/03/11 and OP24-1986 dated 2025/12/30

Nature

Protected designation of origin

Country

France

Jurisdiction

French IPO (INPI)

Parties

Bureau National Interprofessionnel du Cognac (BNIC) v. Gaelle Claude Isabelle Marie Clertan et My little Cognac


In opposition proceedings before the French Intellectual Property Office (INPI), the BNIC successfully obtained recognition that the use of the term “GNAC” constitutes an unlawful evocation of the protected geographical indication (GI) COGNAC, both in relation to similar products (COGNAC v. TI’GNAC) and dissimilar products and services (COGNAC c. APERO’GNAC).

The Bureau National Interprofessionnel du Cognac (BNIC) was represented by Caroline Casalonga, Attorney at Law at the Paris Bar.

INPI, OP24-1986/NG, COGNAC c. TI’GNAC, 11 March 2025:

An opposition was filed against the French trademark application No. 5039395 TI’GNAC, covering “Alcoholic beverages (except beer); wines; wines with protected designation of origin; wines with protected geographical indication” in Class 33.
In its decision of March 11, 2025, the INPI held that:
⦁ the term GNAC is perceived by consumers as a familiar abbreviation of “Cognac”,
⦁ the association with « TI », a Creole term commonly used in the spirits sector (e.g. ti’punch), reinforces the evocation of an alcoholic beverage derived from Cognac,
⦁ taken as a whole, the sign TI’GNAC will be immediately associated by the relevant public with products benefiting from the COGNAC GI.
Accordingly, the INPI found that the sign TI’GNAC constituted an unlawful evocation of the COGNAC geographical indication within the meaning of EU law, and refused its registration for all gods designated in class 33.

INPI, OP24-1986/NG, COGNAC c. APERO’GNAC, 30 December 2025:

An opposition was filed against French trademark application No. 5141920 .
Following a provisional refusal requiring the deletion of goods in Class 33, the application was limited to goods in Class 29 and services in Class 41.
In rejecting the application, the Examiner found that:
⦁ the contested sign would be understood as a play on word combining the notion of an aperitif with the product benefiting from the COGNAC GI, the term “GNAC” being used as a familiar reference to Cognac,
⦁ the additional indications “70CL – 30% ALC.” and the figurative representation of grapes further reinforced the evocation of the protected GI.
The INPI concluded that the sign was liable to create, in the mind of the relevant public, a sufficiently direct and unambiguous link with the protected designation COGNAC, notwithstanding the fact that the goods and services concerned were different from the product covered by the GI.
As a result, the trademark application was considered liable to infringe the COGNAC geographical indication and was rejected in respect of all the designated goods and services.