On June 25, 2025 the General Court of the European Union delivered its highly anticipated ruling in the «NERO CHAMPAGNE» case (T‑239/23).

The case was brought before the General Court by the Comité interprofessionnel du vin de Champagne and Institut national de l'origine et de la qualité (INAO), seeking to annul the Second Board of Appeal's decision of the European Union Intellectual Property Office, in so far as it had rejected the opposition against the application for registration of the word mark “NERO CHAMPAGNE” for wine complying with the product specification of the Champagne PDO, as well as for the services intended to sale, present and promote Champagne PDO.

According to the General Court, the mere fact that a trade mark containing a PDO limits its registration to products complying with the specification of the PDO and to services relating to such products does not in itself preclude that the trade mark exploits the reputation of the PDO (or falls within the other grounds for refusal or cancellation concerning the collision with a PDO). Rather, the EUIPO adjudicating bodies must examine the elements that can lead to conclude that a given trade mark is likely to unduly exploit the reputation of a PDO (or otherwise conflicts with a PDO), even if it only covers products complying with the specification of that PDO or related services.

Among the elements that should be evaluated to determine if the trade mark is actually exploiting the reputation of a PDO/PGI, the General Court identified the following key warning signs:

1. reputation of the PDO/PGI;
2. application for registration extended to services which cannot comply with the product specification of a PDO/PGI;
3. the possible misleading effect on the public with respect to the quality/provenance/origin/nature of the product;
4. the fact that the trade mark applied for is a word mark, as it can be used in many different ways on the market (including in ways that are contrary to the provisions of the product specification of a PDO/PGI);
5. the possible violation of the labelling rules of the PDO/PGI.

Additionally, the General Court found that the Board of Appeal made an error of assessment when excluding that “NERO CHAMPAGNE” could mislead consumers about product qualities. Indeed, the General Court noted that “nero” - Italian for “black” and used in the name of Italian grape varieties - combined with "Champagne" could mislead consumers into believing a new variety of Champagne (i.e., black Champagne) exists, which is not the case, or that “NERO CHAMPAGNE” describes a Champagne made exclusively from Pinot Noir (“Pinot Nero”).

The Board of Appeal’s decision was therefore annulled with consequent total refusal of the EU trade mark application for “NERO CHAMPAGNE”.

The decision is subject to appeal before the EU Court of Justice.

Key takeaways for Trade mark and PDO/PGI Protection

This decision marks a significant reinforcement of the protection of Geographical Indications (GIs) in the EU. It underscores that:

• Trade marks containing a PDO or PGI cannot be automatically approved, even if limited to compliant products.
• A case-by-case assessment is necessary to determine whether a trademark exploits the reputation or distinctiveness of a PDO/PGI.
• If such exploitation is found, the trade mark should be refused or, if already registered, invalidated.

From a practical perspective, this judgment offers a valuable framework for challenging trademark applications that may infringe upon protected designations, even if limited to compliant PDO/PGI products. The criteria listed by the General Court serve as guidance for future cases, although the list is not exhaustive and additional elements may be relevant.

The implications of this decision for both GI protection and EU trade mark law are ongoing so watch this space!