News

A ruling by the General Court of the European Union upholds the protection of the “Champagne” PDO and strengthens the protection of GIs at the European level

In proceedings initiated by the INAO and the CIVC against the “NERO CHAMPAGNE” trademark registered by the Italian company NERO LIFESTYLE with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), the General Court of the European Union (GC) annulled on Wednesday, June 25, 2025, the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the EUIPO. The opposition filed by the INAO and the CIVC against the “NERO CHAMPAGNE” trademark was upheld by the court, including with regard to “wines that comply with the specifications of the ‘Champagne’ PDO.”

Temps de lecture : 10 minutes

Partagez

Mots-clés

Panorama de vignobles en Champagne ©O. Russeil

A Controversial Trademark Registered by the EUIPO

In 2019, the Italian company Nero Lifestyle filed an application with the EUIPO to register the word mark “NERO CHAMPAGNE” for various goods in Class 33 (alcoholic beverages) as well as services.

Even though it had been limited to wines from the Champagne AOP, the INAO and the CIVC opposed the registration of the trademark, arguing that it infringed upon the “Champagne” AOP. Since the trademark lacked distinctiveness, it constituted an improper appropriation, took undue advantage of the AOP’s reputation, and was misleading to consumers given the association between the term “Nero” (Italian for “black”) and “Champagne.” Since the opposition was partially rejected by the EUIPO—which required only that the mark be limited to “wines and services covered by the Champagne PDO”—the INAO and the CIVC filed an appeal with the EUIPO Board of Appeal, which upheld its position.

The CIVC and the INAO therefore filed a complaint with the General Court of the EU. The French and Italian governments, as well as OriGIn, voluntarily intervened in their support.

The General Court confirmed the applicability of the rules on the protection of GIs

Agreeing with the bulk of the arguments put forward by the INAO, the CIVC, and the French government, the General Court thus reiterated that EU law does not prohibit a trademark from containing a PDO, but that its registration may be refused if the product does not comply with the specifications of the PDO in question. This is particularly the case if its use exploits the reputation of a PDO or if the trademark applied for conveys a false or misleading indication regarding the product’s provenance or origin (paragraphs 49–51 of the judgment).

A presumption may apply when a trademark containing a PDO designates only products that comply with the specifications of that PDO and does not take unfair advantage of the PDO’s reputation.
However, contrary to the EUIPO’s argument, this presumption may be rebutted where it is shown that a trademark is likely to take unfair advantage of the reputation of a PDO, even if it designates only products that comply with the specifications of that PDO (paragraphs 58–59 of the judgment).

The General Court thus emphasizes that the rules of protection apply even to products benefiting from a GI.

AOP "Champagne" ©Syndicat des Vignerons de Champagne

The Court further finds that the EUIPO Board of Appeal violated its obligation to state reasons by failing to sufficiently explain why the evidence submitted by the INAO and the CIVC was not capable of rebutting the presumption.

The General Court reiterated that, in order for the presumption to be rebutted, it is necessary to demonstrate, through concrete, substantiated, and consistent evidence, that a given trademark is likely to take unfair advantage of the reputation of a PDO, even if it designates only products that comply with the specifications of that PDO or related services. This is the Court’s finding:

“It appears from the applicants’ pleadings that several factors, tending to demonstrate that the trademark applied for was likely to exploit the reputation of the “Champagne” PDO, were raised during the administrative proceedings. These include, first, the particularly high reputation of the “Champagne” PDO; second, the argument that a service cannot, by definition, comply with the specifications of a PDO, and therefore the “limitation theory” cannot apply to services; third, the fact that the mark applied for is a word mark, which can thus be used in many different ways on the market, including in ways contrary to the objectives of the PDO; fourth, arguments asserting, in essence, that the term “nero” qualified the term “champagne” within the mark applied for; and, fifth, arguments concerning the labeling of products marketed by Nero Lifestyle. ”

Judgment of the General Court of the European Union of June 25, 2025, Case T-239/23, paragraph 64

“Nero Champagne,” a trademark conveying a false or misleading indication

Exercising its power to reverse the decision, the General Court held that the Board of Appeal was required to conclude, following a comprehensive assessment of the evidence provided by the applicants, that such evidence was sufficient to demonstrate that the term “nero” could be perceived as referring either to the grape variety used to make champagne or to its color. The mark applied for could be perceived by a portion of the relevant public as conveying a false or misleading indication within the meaning of Article 103(2)(c) of Regulation No. 1308/2013.
The General Court notes that this term is used in the names of several well-known Italian grape varieties and that numerous grape varieties include it in their names.

Furthermore, the term “nero” will be understood by the relevant Italian-speaking public to mean “black.” The public might therefore think that it is a “black champagne,” even though, according to the PDO specifications, champagne can only be white or rosé.

The EUIPO may still file an appeal with the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Drapeaux de la France et de l'Union européenne ©Antoine Schibler sur Unsplash

A Major Step Forward for the Protection of Geographical Indications at the European Level

Beyond our satisfaction with the positive outcome of this case, which began nearly six years ago, this decision represents a major step forward for the protection of GIs at the European level.

Indeed, while there has been consistent French case law in recent years recognizing that GI protection applies even to products benefiting from a GI—whether in cases of misappropriation, free-riding on reputation, or evocation—such recognition did not exist at the European level, and the INAO’s efforts with the EUIPO proved fruitless in these situations.

Beyond the fact that this French position is now established and shared at the European level, it opens up a whole new range of possibilities within the EU.

Furthermore, this ruling will lead the EUIPO to thoroughly review its practices and assessments regarding GIs, particularly the section on geographical indications in its guidelines on trademarks and designs.

To learn more...

More news on the protection of trademarks and trade names