▁reached ▁the ▁national ▁court ▁of ▁last ▁resort , ▁which ▁referred ▁the ▁question ▁whether ▁any ▁and ▁all ▁registr ations ▁for ▁ge ograph ically ▁descript ive ▁marks ▁must ▁be ▁refused ▁under ▁the ▁First ▁Council ▁Direct ive ▁ 8 9 / 1 0 4 / E EC ▁of ▁December ▁ 2 1 , ▁ 1 9 8 8 , ▁to ▁the ▁EC J . ▁ ▁The ▁Court ’ s ▁Dec ision ▁ ▁The ▁court ▁did ▁not ▁accept ▁the ▁def endant ’ s ▁argument ▁that ▁because ▁the ▁word ▁“ Ch iem see ” ▁is ▁an ▁indic ation ▁that ▁design ates ▁ge ographical ▁origin , ▁it ▁must ▁remain ▁available ▁for ▁use ▁by ▁others . ▁The ▁court ▁also ▁did ▁not ▁simply ▁allow ▁for ▁registration ▁on ▁the ▁basis ▁that ▁the ▁def endant ▁was ▁using ▁a ▁picture ▁mark ▁that ▁looked ▁different ▁from ▁the ▁pla int iff ’ s ▁picture ▁mark . ▁ ▁Instead , ▁the ▁EC J ▁held ▁that ▁ge ograph ically ▁descript ive ▁marks ▁are ▁not ▁categor ically ▁un reg istra ble , ▁with ▁the ▁cave at ▁that ▁the ▁registr ant ▁must ▁show ▁that ▁consum ers ▁have ▁come ▁to ▁associate ▁the ▁mark ▁with ▁the ▁registr ant ’ s ▁products . ▁ ▁This ▁is ▁in ▁line ▁with ▁the ▁American ▁law ▁on ▁the ▁subject , ▁where ▁the ▁cases ▁rely ▁on ▁evidence ▁about ▁consumer ▁per ception s . ▁ ▁Rel ated ▁Case ▁ ▁Pro ct er ▁& ▁Gam ble ▁Co . ▁v ▁O H IM ▁( the ▁" B aby ▁D ry " ▁case ) ▁is ▁a ▁good ▁counter point ▁to ▁Wind sur