COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION RULES THAT THE USE OF THE NAME “CHAMPANILLO” INFRINGES ON LEGAL PROTECTIONS GIVEN TO CHAMPAGNE

Judgment in Case C-783/19 , dated 9 September 2021

Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne

French wine makers win an EU court dispute with Barcelona tapas bar chain over its use of the name “CHAMPANILLO” and a logo that the owner uses to “designate and promote his establishments” which consists of an image of two clinking champagne coupes containing a sparkling beverage.

The Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne (CIVC), an organisation which protects the interests of champagne producers, brought an action before the Spanish courts seeking to prohibit the use of the term CHAMPANILLO – which in Spanish means “little champagne”.

Comité claims that the use of that sign infringes the protected designation of origin (PDO) ‘Champagne’. Upon appeal, the provincial court of Barcelona referred the issue to the European Court of Justice (ECJ), asking how to apply the EU’s PDO scheme on the ground.

On 9 September, the EU judges ruled that, in assessing the potential infringement of the protected designation of origin framework, the Spanish Court must consider that the Regulation protects PDOs vis-à-vis conduct in respect of both products and services, like restaurants.

It (the Regulation)[1] is essentially intended to assure consumers that PDOs offer a guarantee of quality due to their geographical provenance, with the aim of enabling agricultural operators to secure higher incomes in return for a genuine effort to improve quality, and of preventing improper use of those designations by third parties seeking to profit from the reputation which those products have acquired by their quality. Therefore, it provides a wide spectrum of protections that are intended to extend to all uses which take advantage of the reputation enjoyed by products covered by one of those indications.

What’s new in this case is the use of a name similar to Champagne by a service provider. Due to the reasoning mentioned above, the Court considers that an interpretation of article 103(2)(b) of that Regulation grants protection to a PDO where the disputed sign designates a service. The article states that a PDO shall be protected even if the true origin of the product or service is indicated by an expression such as ‘style’, ‘type’, ‘method’, ‘as produced in’, ‘imitation’, ‘flavour", ‘like’ or similar”

Also, the court added that “The concept of ‘evocation’, within the meaning of the Regulation, does not require that the product covered by the PDO and the product or service covered by the disputed name beidentical or similar,” and that it may even be triggered due to ‘conceptual proximity’ which clearly covers the name CHAMPANILLO over two clinking coupes of sparkling beverage.

Lastly, the court states that in making the assessment as to whether there is such an evocation, reference must be made to the perception of an average European consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect.

Because the disputed sign creates a sufficiently clear and direct link between that name and the PDO, the court backed Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne (CIVC) over the dispute which will result in the Tapas bar to dropping the term "CHAMPANILLO".

Kind regards,

Zumbul Attorneys-at-Law

info@zumbul.av.tr

 

 

 


[1] Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 671).