Reputation as a Legally Protected Asset: The CHAMPAIGN and NERO CHAMPAGNE Cases
Two decisions by European institutions illustrate the extent of legal protection afforded to geographical indications and explain why well-known protected names may be invoked against trade mark applications, even where the goods concerned belong to entirely different market sectors.
Can a company register a trade mark resembling Champagne for kitchen appliances? And can a protected designation of origin legitimately form part of a trade mark for wines that fully comply with the production requirements for Champagne?
At first glance, these appear to be two distinct questions. Yet both raise the same fundamental legal issue: when does the use of a protected designation of origin amount to the unfair exploitation of its reputation?
Two decisions issued in 2025 and 2026 provide important guidance.
On 25 June 2025, the General Court of the European Union delivered its judgment in Case T-239/23 concerning the trade mark application NERO CHAMPAGNE. On 24 August 2026, the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) issued its decision in Case R 1446/2025-2 concerning the figurative mark CHAMPAIGN.
Both cases highlight one of the most significant aspects of geographical indication protection: the recognition of reputation as an economic asset deserving independent legal protection.
Champagne: More Than a Geographical Name
Champagne is among the world’s most widely recognised protected designations of origin (PDOs). It identifies wine produced within the designated Champagne region of France in accordance with an established product specification.
However, its legal protection extends beyond guaranteeing the geographical origin and quality of the product.
Over time, Champagne has become synonymous with prestige, celebration, luxury and superior quality. These associations are the result of sustained efforts and investments by producers in the region.
This reputation constitutes an economic asset that EU legislation protects against unauthorised exploitation by third parties.
Unlike an individual trade mark, a protected designation of origin does not identify goods originating from a particular undertaking. It may be used by any producer whose products comply with the relevant specification.
Nevertheless, this entitlement does not mean that every incorporation of a protected designation into a trade mark is permissible.
For a broader overview of the European system, see IPI Institute’s introduction to geographical indications in Europe.
CHAMPAIGN vs CHAMPAGNE: A Dispute Over Reputation Beyond the Wine Sector
On 4 July 2022, the US company Monument Grill LLC applied to register the figurative mark CHAMPAIGN as an EU trade mark.
The application covered various goods in Class 11 of the Nice Classification. These included grills, barbecues, gas burners, cooking appliances, refrigeration equipment, lighting apparatus and other technical devices.
The sign featured a stylised version of CHAMPAIGN. Part of the letter “m” was designed to resemble a kitchen spatula.
The Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne opposed the application. This organisation represents the collective interests of Champagne producers.
It argued that CHAMPAIGN closely resembled the protected designation Champagne. Its use could therefore allow the applicant to take unfair advantage of the designation’s reputation.
From Opposition to Refusal of Registration
The proceedings went through several stages.
In October 2023, the EUIPO Opposition Division rejected the opposition. That decision was appealed, and in September 2024, the Second Board of Appeal annulled it because the applicable legislative amendments had not been taken into account.
In June 2025, the Opposition Division again rejected the opposition.
In its reasoning, the Division considered that kitchen appliances and wine were not comparable products. It also took account of the visual differences between the signs and found that the opponent had not sufficiently demonstrated how the use of CHAMPAIGN would exploit the reputation of the protected designation.
Following a further appeal, the matter returned to the Second Board of Appeal.
In its decision of 24 August 2026 in Case R 1446/2025-2, the Board annulled the contested decision, upheld the opposition and rejected the CHAMPAIGN trade mark application in respect of all the goods applied for.
Why Is CHAMPAIGN Too Similar to CHAMPAGNE?
One of the central questions was whether the differences in spelling and graphic presentation were sufficient to distinguish the two signs.
The Board of Appeal found a high degree of visual and phonetic similarity between CHAMPAIGN and CHAMPAGNE.
The signs have almost identical structures and lengths. Their differences are concentrated in the final letters, while their initial elements are identical.
According to the Board, the stylised representation of a kitchen spatula was insufficient to alter the overall perception of the contested sign.
Phonetically, the two expressions are identical or almost identical for a substantial part of the relevant public. The Board also considered evidence demonstrating that CHAMPAIGN appeared in English-language sources as an alternative spelling of, or reference to, Champagne.
It therefore concluded that the signs were also conceptually identical for the relevant part of the public.
On this basis, the Board found that the use of the contested sign constituted direct commercial use of the protected designation within the meaning of Article 103(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, in the version applicable to the case.
However, similarity alone did not exhaust the legal analysis.
Why Does the Difference Between the Products Not Rule Out an Infringement?
This is one of the most significant issues addressed in the CHAMPAIGN decision.
The trade mark application concerned goods in Class 11, primarily appliances and technical equipment. By contrast, the protected designation Champagne identifies wine.
The two product categories are clearly not comparable.
Nevertheless, the Board of Appeal concluded that this difference did not preclude the possibility of exploiting the reputation of the protected designation.
According to the Board, Champagne enjoys an exceptional reputation throughout the European Union. The designation evokes associations with luxury, elegance, exclusivity, celebration and superior quality. These attributes have been developed and maintained through sustained investment by producers in the Champagne region.
Using a highly similar sign for kitchen appliances could transfer this positive image to the applicant’s goods.
The decision also acknowledged a connection between Champagne and culinary culture. Champagne has an established place in gastronomy, while some of the goods covered by the application are intended for food preparation and storage.
This connection could further facilitate positive associations in consumers’ minds.
However, the Board did not limit its findings to kitchen equipment. It considered that the transfer of the positive image associated with a protected designation enjoying an exceptional reputation was not necessarily confined to a particular product sector.
Consequently, the refusal of registration extended to all the goods applied for in Class 11, including technical devices with no direct connection to wine production or consumption.
The central conclusion is that a lack of similarity between products does not preclude the unfair exploitation of the reputation of a well-known protected designation of origin.
Reputation as a Commercial Advantage
The economic dimension of the decision is particularly noteworthy.
The Board of Appeal considered that the use of CHAMPAIGN could lead consumers to perceive the goods bearing that sign as premium products meeting high quality standards.
Positive associations with Champagne could facilitate product recognition, market entry and consumer confidence. This would provide the applicant with a commercial advantage derived from a reputation to which it had made no contribution.
The Board concluded that such a transfer of image constituted exploitation of the protected designation’s reputation.
Importantly, this assessment does not require establishing the traditional likelihood of confusion regarding the commercial origin of the goods. The relevant question is whether the use of a highly similar sign would enable the applicant to obtain an unfair advantage from the prestige associated with the protected designation.
It was on this basis that the EUIPO upheld the opposition against the registration of CHAMPAIGN.
NERO CHAMPAGNE: When the Products Comply with the PDO Specification
A year earlier, the General Court of the European Union examined a different but equally important legal question.
On 19 February 2019, the Italian company Nero Lifestyle Srl applied to register the word mark NERO CHAMPAGNE. The application covered wines in Class 33 complying with the product specification of the Champagne PDO. It also included related commercial, educational, cultural and other services in Classes 35 and 41. The EUIPO further examines the case and its legal implications in its analysis of NERO CHAMPAGNE.
The Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne and the French National Institute of Origin and Quality (Institut national de l’origine et de la qualité – INAO) opposed the application.
The dispute raised a particularly significant question in intellectual property law: can a trade mark incorporating a protected designation of origin exploit that designation’s reputation even when it identifies products that fully comply with the relevant product specification?
Compliance with the Product Specification Does Not Confer Automatic Immunity
In its judgment of 25 June 2025 in Case T-239/23, the General Court confirmed that EU law does not, in principle, prohibit the registration of a trade mark containing a protected designation of origin.
However, whether such registration is permissible depends on the specific circumstances of the case.
The Court examined the so-called “limitation theory”. Under this approach, where a trade mark application is restricted to products complying with the specification of the protected designation, or to services related to those products, there is generally a presumption that the reputation of the designation is not being unfairly exploited.
However, this presumption is not absolute. The General Court emphasised that it may be rebutted by specific, substantiated and consistent evidence. Accordingly, compliance with the product specification does not, in itself, eliminate the possibility of unfairly taking advantage of the designation’s reputation.
In the proceedings at issue, the Court found that the EUIPO Board of Appeal had failed to provide sufficient reasoning in its assessment of all the relevant evidence submitted by the opposing organisations. As a result, its decision was legally flawed in relation to the assessment of the potential exploitation of the protected designation’s reputation.
An important distinction must be made here. The General Court did not establish that every trade mark containing Champagne and designating genuine Champagne automatically infringes the protection afforded to that designation. Instead, it required a case-specific assessment of the potential for unfair exploitation.
Could NERO CHAMPAGNE Mislead Consumers?
The NERO CHAMPAGNE case also involved a second legal dimension. The word “nero” means “black” in Italian.
When combined with Champagne, it could be understood by some Italian-speaking consumers as referring to “black Champagne” or as an indication of a particular grape variety.
The Court observed that the Champagne product specification permits white and rosé wines, but not black Champagne.
Consumers might also interpret NERO as a reference to the grape variety used in producing the wine.
Consequently, the General Court considered that part of the relevant public could be misled as to the nature, colour or characteristics of the product.
This assessment was based on Article 103(2)(c) of the applicable version of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, which provides protection against false or misleading indications. The Court found that the Board of Appeal had also erred in its application of this provision.
Ultimately, the General Court annulled the contested part of the EUIPO decision and upheld the opposition concerning the relevant goods and services in Classes 33, 35 and 41.
The judgment is significant in two respects. First, it confirms the need for an individual assessment of the possible exploitation of reputation. Second, it demonstrates that the misleading perception of a trade mark may constitute an independent ground for refusing registration.
What Connects the CHAMPAIGN and NERO CHAMPAGNE Decisions?
At first glance, the two cases concern contrasting situations.
In CHAMPAIGN, the trade mark application covered goods entirely different from those protected by the Champagne designation.
By contrast, the NERO CHAMPAGNE dispute concerned products complying with the relevant PDO specification, together with related services.
However, the decisive consideration in both cases was how the contested sign could affect the protected designation.
.
The CHAMPAIGN decision also refers to the earlier NERO CHAMPAGNE proceedings. This does not mean, however, that the two decisions address identical legal questions.
While NERO CHAMPAGNE examines the possibility of exploiting a PDO’s reputation in relation to products complying with its specification, CHAMPAIGN focuses on the use of a highly similar sign for non-comparable goods.
Considered together, the two decisions illustrate several important principles.
First, reputation constitutes an independently protected economic asset. Its protection extends beyond preventing confusion as to the origin of products.
Second, the absence of similarity between goods does not rule out an infringement. A well-known geographical designation may be exploited unlawfully even in an entirely different product sector.
Third, compliance with a product specification does not authorise every use of a protected designation. Where a PDO is incorporated into a trade mark, the specific characteristics of the sign and how it is perceived must be assessed.
Fourth, the different legal grounds must be distinguished. Exploitation of reputation, evocation and the use of misleading indications represent distinct forms of interference with protected geographical names.
Fifth, evidence and legal reasoning are crucial. The assessment must consider the extent of the designation’s reputation, the similarity between the signs, consumer perception and the particular circumstances of the case.
The Broader Case Law: Champanillo and Champagner Sorbet
The CHAMPAIGN and NERO CHAMPAGNE decisions form part of a broader development in EU case law concerning the protection of geographical indications.
Champanillo: Protection Extends to Services
On 9 September 2021, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered its judgment in Case C-783/19, commonly known as the Champanillo case. The dispute concerned the use of the name Champanillo for restaurant services in Spain. The Court held that protection against the evocation of a protected designation of origin may extend to both products and services. It is not necessary for the products or services concerned to be identical or similar to those covered by the registered geographical designation. What matters is whether the sign creates a sufficiently direct and unequivocal link with the protected designation in the mind of the average European consumer. The judgment therefore contributed to clarifying the scope of protection against evocation.
Champagner Sorbet: When Is Use Permissible?
On 20 December 2017, the Court of Justice of the European Union examined Case C-393/16 concerning the use of the name Champagner Sorbet for a food product containing Champagne. The Court held that incorporating a protected designation into the name of such a product does not automatically constitute an infringement. A decisive consideration is whether the protected ingredient gives the finished product the essential characteristic implied by the designation. In this particular dispute, an important criterion was whether the sorbet had a taste primarily attributable to the Champagne it contained. If this was not the case, use of the name could constitute unfair exploitation of the reputation of Champagne. The judgment demonstrates that an assessment must not be based solely on the wording used. The actual characteristics of the product must also be examined.
How Is the European Legal Framework Evolving?
The protection of geographical indications in the European Union has undergone significant changes in recent years. Both cases examined here are based on Article 8(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 on the European Union trade mark, read in conjunction with the applicable provisions governing geographical indication protection. In NERO CHAMPAGNE, the earlier version of Article 103 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 was applicable. In CHAMPAIGN, given the filing date of 4 July 2022, the applicable legislation was Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 as amended by Regulation (EU) 2021/2117. These amendments provide protection against commercial use of a protected designation where such use exploits, weakens or dilutes its reputation.
Meanwhile, the EU legal framework has been further developed through Regulation (EU) 2024/1143, which establishes an updated system of protection for geographical indications for wines, spirit drinks and agricultural products.
Article 26 of the new Regulation provides protection against various forms of unauthorised use, including exploitation, weakening, dilution or damage to the reputation of a protected name. Under the conditions laid down in that provision, protection also extends to use in relation to products or services outside the scope of the original registration.
Article 31 governs the relationship between geographical indications and trade marks. It provides for the refusal of registration of a later trade mark where its use would contravene the protection established under Article 26, subject to the applicable temporal conditions.
These provisions did not constitute the direct legal basis for the decisions examined here. Nevertheless, they illustrate the direction in which EU legislation is developing.
Geographical indications are increasingly recognised not merely as instruments guaranteeing origin and quality, but also as intellectual property assets with substantial reputational value.
What Do These Decisions Mean for Businesses?
For businesses developing new products and trade marks, the practical implications are significant. Conducting searches for earlier similar trade marks is an essential part of preparing a trade mark application. However, such searches do not identify every potential conflict with existing intellectual property rights. Protected geographical indications must also be considered, particularly where a proposed sign resembles a widely recognised protected name.
In conducting this assessment, it is not sufficient to establish that the goods applied for fall within a different class of the Nice Classification. Businesses should consider whether the proposed sign creates associations with a protected designation and whether those associations could transfer its positive image to their products. Relevant factors include visual and phonetic similarity, consumer perception, the extent of the protected designation’s reputation and the context in which the proposed sign is intended to be used. Where appropriate, the potential for misleading consumers about the characteristics of a product should also be assessed.
For organisations representing the collective interests of producers, the decisions underline the importance of consistent enforcement and thorough preparation of evidence.
The CHAMPAIGN case is particularly illustrative. The proceedings involved a wide range of evidence concerning the recognition and reputation of Champagne, including market information, professional publications and expert opinions. This evidence supported the legal assessment of whether the protected designation’s positive image could be transferred to goods in other sectors.
Protecting reputation is therefore not solely about preventing misleading commercial practices. It is also about preserving the economic value created by producers over decades.
Reputation as an Intangible Asset: Defining the Limits of Its Use
The CHAMPAIGN and NERO CHAMPAGNE cases demonstrate that EU geographical indication protection extends beyond prohibiting particular words. Legal assessment must consider the contested sign, the protected designation, the relevant products and consumer perception.
Protection against the unfair transfer of reputation is particularly important. An undertaking may gain a commercial advantage from prestige built through other producers’ efforts and investments.
The August 2026 CHAMPAIGN decision illustrates this risk. It confirms that a protected geographical designation’s exceptional reputation may extend beyond its traditional product sector.
The 2025 NERO CHAMPAGNE judgment adds another dimension. Even when products meet the relevant specification, incorporating a protected designation into a trade mark requires individual legal assessment.
Together, these decisions establish an important principle. The reputation of a geographical indication is a valuable intangible asset. Its legal protection may extend beyond the product itself and its traditional market.
For businesses, this highlights the need for more comprehensive legal assessments when selecting trade marks. Rights holders and their representative bodies can better protect the economic value of established reputations.
More broadly, these decisions help clarify the distinction between legitimate use of protected names and unlawful exploitation of their reputation.