First off, thanks for the history lesson. I—and probably Techdirt—would likely agree that Hungary was wrong in canceling the Tocai. Tokaji is not confusingly similar to Tocai, and Tocai clearly had been in use for a long time. That is a clear example of trademark abuse, and it is perfectly understandable that Italy would wish to avoid a repeat of that. Additionally, no one here is saying that Italy shouldn’t oppose trademarks that are genuinely confusingly similar to Prosecco.

A couple things though.

First, I know nothing about cheese and don’t have a great palate or anything like that, but I’ve never bought or used parmesan thinking it was parmigiana. To be honest, I rarely use parmigiana at all for the simple reason that my palate isn’t refined enough to care about the differences between a number of cheeses. I just like parmesan because I think it’s fine. If anything, I’ve assumed that parmigiana is just a superior version of parmesan—basically that parmigiana is authentic Italian and parmesan is not—but it’s not something I get confused about. (Though, to be perfectly candid, parmesan, parmigiana, mozzarella, ricotta, cheddar, and American are the only cheeses I like, and only in specific dishes: parmesan, parmigiana, and melted mozzarella on pizza and pastas; ricotta in lasagna; cheddar in tacos (and maybe cheese quesadillas, but tbh I don’t know what cheese gets used in those); and American in grilled cheese. I’m not a huge fan of cheese outside of those particular dishes, so my opinions on cheese flavors and quality should be taken with a grain of salt. The main point, though, is that I never bought or used parmesan thinking it was the supposedly high-quality parmigiana.)

As far as the Prosecco "ripoffs" are concerned, I’m no wine expert, and I’m not exactly someone who buys wine, like, ever, but I think you may be blowing things out of proportion there.

First of all, I would argue that the wines you mentioned are clearly intended to be distinct from Prosecco even if they are imitations. Semisecco, Meer-secco, and Perisecco, for example, use prefixes to make clear that that they are—at best—subpar imitations of Prosecco. And none of these names look or sound anything like the full name “Prosecco”. I doubt anyone who is actually looking for Prosecco will see any of these wines will buy them thinking that they’re Prosecco, nor do I believe that the name “Prosecco” is likely to be sued over based upon trademarks of any of these names like what happened with Tokaji and Tocai (which are at least spelled similarly—two letters different, with one of the changed letters still making the same sound—and were named completely independently of each other). These may be imitations, to be sure, but the names seem to make it pretty clear that they are imitations (or are unrelated to Prosecco) and not the real deal.

Additionally, looking into the etymology, “secco” is apparently an Italian word that literally means “dry”, which is itself a commonly used adjective to describe the flavor of various wines, much like “sour” or “sweet”. So, arguably, it’s possible that some of those wines use “secco” in the name not to reference Prosecco but simply to refer to the dry flavor of the wine. If so, it’s a descriptive use, not a use to capitalize on the name “Prosecco” like you claim.

Even ignoring that, though, let’s look at the objections specifically mentioned in the article. After all, Techdirt doesn’t say that any opposition to trademarks because of Prosecco are necessarily silly; it’s more discriminatory than that. So, of the three mentioned in the article, two use “-secco” (Nosecco and Pawsecco) and one uses “Pro-” (Prosek).

With Pawsecco, it is clearly meant for pets’ consumption. Like, it’s right there in the name. If anyone buys Pawsecco thinking it’s Prosecco, there is something seriously wrong with them. Frankly, anyone who buys Pawsecco for human consumption and/or Prosecco for pet consumption is an idiot, too. The reference to Prosecco is clearly tongue-in-cheek, intended to make it sound wine-like by invoking names of actual wines. It’s like (and I’m just making this up off of the top of my head) “Mewscatto”; only a moron in a hurry would get confused by the name. It’s also unlikely that the makers of Pawsecco would sue over use of the word “Prosecco”.

With Nosecco, the name at least rhymes, but more important is that it starts with the word “no”, which I’m pretty sure would make people who see the word interpret it as meaning something like “not Prosecco”. It’s not even alcoholic; it’s a sparkling non-alcoholic “wine”. Again, I don’t see how people could get the two confused. Are there non-alcoholic Proseccos? And, again, given the use, I highly doubt they’d go after Prosecco.

Then there is the main subject of the article, Prosek. Unlike the other two in the article or the ones you mentioned, it doesn’t contain “secco” at all, nor could it possibly be interpreted as an attempt to rip off or capitalize on the fame of Prosecco. Indeed, it’s clear that the name and the wine were both developed completely independently from Prosecco. The two even have unrelated meanings: in Italian, “pro” roughly means “advantage” while “secco” means “dry”, but in Croatian, “prosek” literally means “average”. As such, renaming it doesn’t make any sense. As for customer confusion, I don’t think the names are that similar; I’d assume that any wine-buyer who is familiar with Prosecco and/or Prosek and is looking for either will get the two confused. Anyone who does get confused when buying wine probably isn’t familiar with different kinds of wine anyways or is so drunk they probably shouldn’t get any more wine.

Now, I would be willing to acknowledge the possibility of a repeat of the “Tokaji-Tocai” thing, but there are still a couple of problems. For one thing, according to the article, that’s not what is being complained about. No one mentions fear of Prosecco being removed from the lexicon or anything like that. It’s all about fear of customer confusion, and I simply don’t believe such fears are justified here. Second, I think there may be another option here: apply for “Prosecco” to be similarly protected. That should help ensure that what happened to Tocai won’t happen to Prosecco even if the application for Prosek gets approved. I just don’t think opposition to the application is the best strategy here.

Finally, a word on the last statement:

They are defending their rights, and customers’ rights at the same time.

When a protected mark is being protected properly, that’s what should be the case: trademark’s primary purpose is to protect customers (which is very different from other IP rights, which are more meant to promote innovation and creativity by rewarding creators and inventors). It’s basically to prevent customers from being tricked into buying a knock-off, imitation, or counterfeit while thinking it’s the real deal. It’s also to help consumers identify the source, so that way a given company’s reputation doesn’t get spoiled by knock-offs or counterfeits, and consumers who prefer a specific maker or seller don’t get tricked into buying from someone else without knowing it. Again, the purpose is to protect consumers.

However, when someone goes overboard in either enforcing or contesting a trademark where no actual confusion is likely, that’s not protecting customer’s rights anymore. The Prosecco Group may have properly protected Prosecco before, but in these specific three instances, I believe they are seeing (or pretending to see) confusion where none exists, and so they are not acting as someone actually defending customers’ rights or their rights but rather a bully.