Corte di giustizia UE/2025

62023TO0239(01) [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA]) 12 November 2025 ( *1 ) (Procedure – Rectification of judgment) [OSCURATO:PERSONA] T‑239/23 REC, T‑239/23 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and T‑239/23 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], Comité interprofessionnel du vin de [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , established in Épernay (France), Institut national de l’origine et de la qualité (INAO) , established in Montreuil (France), represented by E. Varese, G. Righini and V. Mazza, lawyers, applicants, supported by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , represented by E. Timmermans and B. Travard, acting as Agents, by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , represented by S. Fiorentino, acting as Agent, and by G. Caselli, avvocato dello Stato, and by oriGIn, organization for an [OSCURATO:PERSONA] network , established in Geneva (Switzerland), represented by O. Vrins and N. Clarembeaux, lawyers, interveners, v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EUIPO) , represented by D. Gája, acting as Agent, defendant, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], being [OSCURATO:SOCIETA] , established in Milan (Italy), represented by E. Cammareri and B. Marone, lawyers, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA]), composed, at the time of the deliberations, of G. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], acting as [OSCURATO:PERSONA], K. Kecsmár (Rapporteur) and D. Petrlík, Judges, [OSCURATO:PERSONA]: V. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], makes the following [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] adopted the judgment of 25 June 2025, Comité interprofessionnel du vin de [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and INAO v EUIPO – [OSCURATO:SOCIETA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) ( T‑239/23 , the judgment at issue, EU:T:2025:638 ). 2 By document lodged at the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on 8 July 2025, the applicants, the Comité interprofessionnel du vin de [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the Institut national de l’origine et de la qualité (INAO), requested the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], pursuant to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 164 of its Rules of Procedure, to rectify paragraphs 31 and 39 of the judgment at issue. 3 By document lodged at the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on 9 July 2025, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EUIPO) requested the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to rectify paragraphs 26 and 46 of the judgment at issue. 4 By document lodged at the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on 8 July 2025, oriGIn, organization for an [OSCURATO:PERSONA] network (‘oriGIn’), requested the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to rectify paragraph 26 of the judgment at issue. 5 By letter of 15 September 2025, EUIPO stated that it had no objections to the applications for rectification submitted by the applicants and oriGIn. By letters of 23 September 2025, the applicants did not oppose the applications for rectification submitted by EUIPO and oriGIn. 6 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 164(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] may, of its own motion or on application by a party, rectify clerical mistakes, errors in calculation and obvious inaccuracies. 7 In the first place, the applicants submit that paragraphs 31 and 39 of the judgment at issue do not faithfully reflect the meaning of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 102(1) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EU) No 1308/2013 of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 ( OJ 2013 L 347, p. 671 ). 8 The applicants’ application for rectification of paragraphs 31 and 39 of the judgment at issue must be granted, since they contain obvious inaccuracies. 9 The second sentence of paragraph 31 of the judgment at issue should read ‘if the product covered by the trade mark does not comply with the product specification concerned’ instead of ‘if the PDO does not comply with the product specification concerned’. 10 The first sentence of paragraph 39 of the judgment at issue should read ‘trade marks that contain or consist of a PDO and that cover products which do not comply with the product specification concerned’ instead of ‘trade marks that contain or consist of a PDO which does not comply with the product specification concerned’. 11 In the second place, oriGIn and EUIPO request that oriGIn not be mentioned in the third sentence of paragraph 26 of the judgment at issue, in order faithfully to reflect the position expressed by oriGIn at the hearing on 18 September 2024. 12 Paragraph 26 of the judgment at issue must be rectified in so far as it contains an obvious inaccuracy in that it does not reflect the position expressed by oriGIn at the hearing. In the third sentence of paragraph 26 of the judgment at issue, the words ‘and oriGIn’ should be deleted. 13 In the third place, oriGIn requests that a fourth sentence be added to paragraph 26 of the judgment at issue that reflects the position it expressed at the hearing on 18 September 2024. 14 That request is not intended to correct a clerical mistake or an obvious inaccuracy and must therefore be rejected. 15 In that regard, it should be noted that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] alone is competent to determine the relevant facts and, more generally, the information relevant to the resolution of the dispute, which will be mentioned in the decision closing the proceedings (see order of 17 March 2022, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v Commission, T‑745/18 REC , not published, EU:T:2022:160 , paragraph 4 and the case-law cited). 16 In the fourth place, EUIPO requests that paragraph 46 of the judgment at issue be rectified by deleting the first sentence of that paragraph, which, in its view, does not reflect the position it expressed in its response. 17 It must be found that, contrary to EUIPO’s submission, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] did not make a clerical mistake or obvious inaccuracy in stating in the first sentence of paragraph 46 of the judgment at issue that, ‘when questioned at the hearing, EUIPO was unable to clarify whether that theory consisted of a rebuttable or a non-rebuttable presumption and whether, in the contested decision, the Board of Appeal applied the first or the second type of presumption.’ 18 The sentence which EUIPO seeks to have deleted concerns the position expressed by EUIPO at the hearing and not that set out in its response. Furthermore, it is apparent from the recordings of the hearing of 18 September 2024 that EUIPO was unable to provide such clarification at the hearing. 19 The application for rectification of paragraph 46 of the judgment at issue must therefore be rejected. On those grounds, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA]) hereby orders: 1. The third sentence of paragraph 26 of the judgment of 25 June 2025, Comité interprofessionnel du vin de [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and INAO v EUIPO – [OSCURATO:SOCIETA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) ( T‑239/23 , EU:T:2025:638 ), should read: ‘At the hearing, the applicants, supported by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], qualified their position by admitting, first, that, subject to certain conditions, a PDO may form part of a trade mark, while maintaining, secondly, that the Board of Appeal must carry out a case-by-case analysis in order to assess whether the mark applied for exploits the reputation of the PDO in question within the meaning of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 103(2)(a)(ii) of that regulation.’ instead of: ‘At the hearing, the applicants, supported by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and oriGIn, qualified their position by admitting, first, that, subject to certain conditions, a PDO may form part of a trade mark, while maintaining, secondly, that the Board of Appeal must carry out a case-by-case analysis in order to assess whether the mark applied for exploits the reputation of the PDO in question within the meaning of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 103(2)(a)(ii) of that regulation.’ 2. The second sentence of paragraph 31 of the judgment of 25 June 2025, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ( T‑239/23 , EU:T:2025:638 ), should read: ‘On the contrary, it follows from that provision that a mark which contains or consists of a PDO may be registered subject to certain conditions, since registration of such a mark is to be refused or invalidated only in two situations, namely, first, if the product covered by the trade mark does not comply with the product specification concerned or, secondly, if its use falls under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 103(2) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1308/2013 and relates to a product falling under one of the categories listed in Part II of Annex VII to that regulation.’ instead of: ‘On the contrary, it follows from that provision that a mark which contains or consists of a PDO may be registered subject to certain conditions, since registration of such a mark is to be refused or invalidated only in two situations, namely, first, if the PDO does not comply with the product specification concerned or, secondly, if its use falls under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 103(2) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1308/2013 and relates to a product falling under one of the categories listed in Part II of Annex VII to that regulation.’ 3. The first sentence of paragraph 39 of the judgment of 25 June 2025, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ( T‑239/23 , EU:T:2025:638 ), should read: ‘The applicants, supported by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and oriGIn, argue that it is incorrect to infer from [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 102(1) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1308/2013 – the scope of which is limited to trade marks that contain or consist of a PDO and that cover products which do not comply with the product specification concerned – that the scope of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 103(2)(a)(ii) of that regulation is also limited to use of that PDO in respect of products which do not comply with the specification.’ instead of: ‘The applicants, supported by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and oriGIn, argue that it is incorrect to infer from [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 102(1) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1308/2013 – the scope of which is limited to trade marks that contain or consist of a PDO which does not comply with the product specification concerned – that the scope of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 103(2)(a)(ii) of that regulation is also limited to use of that PDO in respect of products which do not comply with the specification.’ 4. The applications for rectification submitted by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EUIPO) and oriGIn, organization for an [OSCURATO:PERSONA] network, are dismissed as to the remainder. Luxembourg, 12 November 2025. V. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] G. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ( *1 ) Language of the case: English.