EU General Court blocks ‘Nero Champagne’ trademark

In a pivotal ruling with wide-reaching implications for the protection of geographical indications, the EU General Court has sided with Comité Champagne and INAO in rejecting the ‘Nero Champagne’ EU trade mark application.

Six years in the making, this ruling ends the protracted opposition to the application by Italian company Nero Lifestyle to register ‘Nero Champagne’ as an EU trade mark for wines and related services, including products ostensibly compliant with the Champagne PDO.

The General Court overturned the earlier decision by the EUIPO to partially allow the trademark registration. In case T-239/23, the Court upheld the objections from Comité Champagne, INAO and the intervening parties, which included the French and Italian Republics, on grounds of exploitation of the reputation of the PDO and the misleading nature of the contested sign.

Critically, the Court found that EUIPO’s Board of Appeal had erred in law by treating the use of a PDO-compliant product description as a blanket safeguard against exploitation. The Court held that no absolute presumption of legitimacy exists in such cases, and that it is indeed possible to exploit a PDO’s reputation even where the mark is limited to compliant products.

The ‘nero’ in question

Equally significant was the Court’s finding on the misleading nature of the word ‘nero’. The term, which evokes several well-known Italian black grape varieties, could mislead consumers into believing the product is a so-called ‘black Champagne’ — a category not permitted under the Champagne specifications, which allow only white or rosé wines. Alternatively, consumers might wrongly assume it is made exclusively from Pinot Noir or similar dark-skinned grapes.

Ginevra Righini, intellectual property partner at DLA Piper, told db that this concern was central to the case: “What is relevant for wine producers generally is that a reference to a colour in a wine’s brand name will serve to qualify that name. Accordingly, care must be taken to avoid using a colour reference that could give rise to a false or misleading indication of the nature of the wine. In the case of PDO Champagne, for example, it can only be white or rosé.”

She added that the decision does not impact producers of legitimate “nero”-related wines. “Producers of wines made from grape varieties such as Albana Nera, Bombino Nero, Greco Nero, Nero buono, Nero d’Avola, Vermentino Nero, Malvasia Nera, Pinot Nero, Nerello Mascalese, and Nerello Cappuccio — all of which use the adjective ‘nero/a’ (meaning ‘black’) to distinguish them from their white counterparts — are not affected by this decision. These names refer to permitted grape varieties and not to PDO names or evocations thereof, and producers remain free to use such varietal indications. Likewise, Italian PDOs that include the adjective ‘nero,’ such as ‘Pinot Nero dell’Oltrepò Pavese’ and ‘Castel del Monte Bombino Nero’ are not impacted.”

The Court concluded that the use of ‘nero’ alongside ‘Champagne’ created the risk of consumer confusion and undermined the integrity of the protected designation.

Wider impact for PDO and PGI protection

Righini said the ruling “reinforces confidence in the sanctity of the PDO ‘Champagne’ and safeguards the interests of winegrowers, Champagne houses and consumers alike”. She noted its broader impact, adding that it “offers renewed clarity and protection for all PDO and PGI-protected products”. Righini congratulated Comité Champagne and INAO and thanked them “for their long-standing trust in our counsel”.

This case also marks a milestone in legal precedent. “This was the first time the General Court was called upon to examine the EUIPO’s decades-long practice of accepting trade marks that contain or evoke PDOs/PGIs, provided they were limited to goods conforming to the relevant PDO specification,” Righini said. “The case was therefore significant not just for Champagne, but for the protection of all GIs affected by this practice. The ruling affirms that the mere fact that products comply with the PDO specifications and services relate to compliant products is not sufficient ab initio to conclude that a trade mark registered in respect of such products or services is not capable of taking unfair advantage of the reputation of the PDO without having specifically examined the particular characteristics of that mark and all the relevant circumstances of the case.”

The judgment is expected to inform forthcoming revisions to the EUIPO Guidelines. “We hope the ruling will end EUIPO’s practice of inviting applicants to limit goods and services to PDO/PGI-compliant products and will prompt a shift in how absolute grounds and oppositions involving PDOs/PGIs are assessed,” Righini added. “The judgment confirms that PDO protection applies independently of whether the goods comply with the PDO specification. Comité Champagne remains committed to ensuring that PDOs retain their proper function and are used lawfully as designations of origin, rather than being diverted into trade marks. Its close engagement with regulators and trade mark offices worldwide continues in pursuit of this mission.”

Righini led the legal team at DLA Piper alongside partner Elena Varese and lawyers Valentina Mazza and Rebecca Rossi.

Trademark ambitions halted

The initial trade mark application, filed in 2019 by Nero Lifestyle, sought to register the word sign ‘Nero Champagne’ for products including wines adhering to the Champagne PDO. The opposition from Comité Champagne and INAO rested on the argument that the term would unfairly leverage the prestige of the Champagne name and mislead consumers about the nature or provenance of the wine.

In its judgment, the Court reaffirmed that while EU law does not prohibit trade marks from including PDOs, registration may be refused where there is exploitation of a PDO’s reputation or if the mark conveys misleading information.

Ultimately, the Court annulled the EUIPO’s decision and rejected the ‘Nero Champagne’ mark, sending a clear message that the reputation and specific characteristics of protected designations must not be diluted by opportunistic branding.

A precedent-setting outcome

This decision brings long-awaited clarity to a grey area in EU trade mark law and serves as a reminder of the legal weight geographical indications carry. For Champagne and all PDO and PGI-protected products, the ruling is a decisive affirmation of their right to be shielded from potentially misleading commercial use, even under the guise of technical compliance.

It is a reminder, too, that the enduring allure of the word ‘Champagne’ remains as legally protected as it is culturally powerful.

Related news

Immersion Collection celebrates 40 years of Champagne Thiénot

Champagne from Prince Charles and Lady Di's wedding up for auction

Champagne prices plunge as UK grocers intensify pre-Christmas discount battle