With a detailed and significant ruling for the protection of Protected Designations of Origin (PDO), the General Court of the European Union upheld the appeal brought by the Comité interprofessionnel du vin de Champagne and the Institut national de l’origine et de la qualité (INAO), partially annulling the decision of the EUIPO (European Union Intellectual Property Office) which had partially authorized the registration of the trademark NERO CHAMPAGNE filed by the Italian company Nero Lifestyle Srl.
The Case
The case concerned the application to register the word trademark “NERO CHAMPAGNE” with the EUIPO for a series of products and services, including wines that comply with the product specification of the Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) “Champagne”. A few months after the filing, the Comité du Champagne and the INAO (the applicants) filed an opposition, arguing that the inclusion of the protected name “Champagne” within the trademark was contrary to EU rules on PDO protection.
Following an initial decision that was only partially favorable to the applicants, the EUIPO Board of Appeal upheld the opposition only for certain services, but rejected it in relation to products compliant with the Champagne PDO specification. This led to an appeal before the General Court of the European Union, which ruled on 25 June 2025.
The Court held that the use of a protected designation in a trademark cannot automatically be considered lawful merely because it refers to products that are “compliant” with the PDO specification. In particular, it criticized the “absolute presumption” adopted by the EUIPO that using the word “Champagne” in a trademark is legitimate if it relates to wines that actually comply with the PDO.
The Court found that the combination of the two terms was likely to convey, at least to a significant part of the relevant public, a misleading message suggesting a direct link with the Champagne region or with the quality protected by the PDO. Therefore, it concluded that the trademark “NERO CHAMPAGNE” constitutes a false or misleading indication under European rules on designations of origin.
According to the European judges, this approach is flawed because Article 103 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 protects PDOs even against commercial uses that unfairly exploit their reputation, regardless of whether the products are compliant. A concrete assessment of the risk of exploiting the reputation of the name “Champagne” is therefore required.
The Court also pointed out that the trademark “NERO CHAMPAGNE”, although referring to products formally compliant with the PDO specification, is nevertheless likely to deceive consumers by evoking a type of champagne that does not exist, since the specification only permits white or rosé wines. According to the Court, such evocation may amount to a false or misleading indication, in breach of Article 103(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.
Conclusions
With this decision, the EU General Court significantly strengthens the protection of PDOs, clarifying that merely “complying with the specification” is not sufficient to use a protected designation in a trademark. The use must also be consistent in terms of communication and marketing, avoiding any ambiguity, exploitation, or consumer confusion.
The judgment represents a victory for the European wine sector – in particular, the prestigious Champagne industry – and sends a clear message to businesses and operators: the reputation of PDOs cannot be used as a commercial lever unless their meaning, origin, and cultural value are fully respected.
Antonella Letteriello