Indeed, considering that the trademark infringed the Champagne PDO, and that it led consumers to believe that there was such a thing as blue Spanish Champagne, the INAO and the CIVC took the trademark to court to have it cancelled.

The Marseilles Court of First Instance accepted this request, since after recalling that in matters of evocation, it is neither necessary for the trademark to include the name of the appellation of origin in extenso, nor for the risk of confusion to be established, in order to retain an infringement of a PDO, it emphasized that it should only be sought whether the consumer, in the presence of the product, is led to have in mind, as an image of reference, the goods benefiting from the appellation.

The Court thus noted that "the radical of the trademark takes up the diminutive 'champs' which constitutes one of the usual abbreviations of the term 'Champagne' in the everyday language used by consumers" and that this diminutive "has such an evocative force of champagne in France, that the consumer will be led to understand the contested trademark as meaning 'blue Spanish champagne' thus constituting a misappropriation of the immense reputation enjoyed by the PDO 'Champagne' and the wines that benefit from it".

The trademark has consequently been cancelled in its entirety and all use prohibited under penalty.

The trademark owner can still appeal.