No, no, Nero! True champagne can only be white or pink | In Principle

There is no presumption of legality if it can be shown that a trademark may unfairly exploit the reputation of a protected designation of origin, even if the trademark covers only products complying with the specifications of the designation or related services.

General Court, judgment of 25 June 2025 in T-239/23, Comité interprofessionnel du vin de Champagne v EUIPO

The brand “Nero Champagne” was supposed to add a dash of black to the golden world of champagne—literally. Italian lifestyle, exclusive hotels, limited-edition bottles … all telling a tale of luxury. But from the start, something didn’t add up: champagne cannot be black.

And that’s not just the sommelier’s opinion—it’s the law of the European Union.

After seven years of litigation, the European Union Intellectual Property Office has finally completed a case illustrating the delicate relationship between protection of designations of origin and protection of trademarks.

On 13 February 2026 the Board of Appeal at EUIPO issued a decision (in case R 531/2022‑4) entirely refusing to register the trademark “Nero Champagne,” even though it was intended to apply to goods and services complying with the specifications for the protected designation of origin (PDO) “Champagne.”

Trademark filing and background

In February 2019, Nero Lifestyle Srl applied to EUIPO for registration of the word sign “Nero Champagne” as an EU trademark for goods and services in:

The applicant was an Italian company operating in the hotel, event and lifestyle space. The company managed a chain of luxury hotels called the Nero Lifestyle Hotel Collection, and within the chain’s “Nero Lifestyle Club” offered a limited edition of champagnes created by niche French producers. It also offered its own champagne under the brand “Nero Champagne,” for example serving it at events hosted by the Nero Lifestyle chain.

Opposition and the course of the proceedings

The filing was opposed by organisations of producers of PDO goods, the Comité interprofessionnel du vin de Champagne (CIVC) and the Institut national de l’origine et de la qualité (INAO). During the proceedings, they were joined by oriGIn (organization for an International Geographical Indication network) and the governments of France and Italy.

The opposition filed in 2019 was based on the PDO for the name “Champagne” (PDO-FR-A1359), registered for wine in the European Union since 1973, under regulations providing that:

• An EU trademark cannot be registered if an application for protection of a designation of origin or geographical indication (e.g. for the name of a product from a specific region) under EU or national law has already been filed (Art. 8(6) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation (2017/1001))
• Designations of origin and geographical indications, including in the case of wine, are protected against exploitation, meaning that it is prohibited to provide false or misleading indications as to the provenance, origin, nature or essential qualities of the product, on the packaging or in advertising materials (Art. 103(2)(c) of the CMO Regulation (1308/2013), as of the date of filing the opposition).

In 2022 the EUIPO Opposition Division upheld the opposition in part. In 2023 the Board of Appeal partially reversed that decision, refusing to register the trademark for advertising, business management, business administration and office functions, but allowing the trademark to be registered for other goods and services, including wines under class 33 and services under class 41.

CIVC and INAO then sought review by the General Court (a division of the Court of Justice of the European Union).

Judgment of the General Court

The subject of the dispute before the General Court was all of the goods and services under classes 33 and 41, as well as the services of “sale, retailing and wholesaling, online sale and sale in shops of wine bearing the protected designation of origin ‘Champagne’” under class 35.

On 25 June 2025, the General Court annulled the decision of the EUIPO Board of Appeal from 2023 and upheld the opposition to registration of the word sign “Nero Champagne” in its entirety.

The General Court essentially held that EUIPO had failed to conduct the required analysis of the issue, and had erroneously found that because the filing involved only wines complying with the PDO “Champagne” and related services, it could not infringe the PDO.

The reputation of champagne

The General Court stressed the exceptional renown of the designation “Champagne” and the broad scope of protection of the PDO.

It was erroneous for EUIPO to assume that use of a PDO in a trademark is always permissible so long as the goods comply with the specification (i.e., in this case the goods are sparkling wines). The court found that EUIPO made an error of law in treating the description of the product consistent with the PDO as a general safeguard against exploitation of reputation, and failed to analyse whether use of the word “Nero” before the word “Champagne” could take unfair advantage of this reputation. There is no irrebuttable presumption that exploitation of the reputation of a DPO or geographical indication is ruled out when a trademark is limited to products complying with the relevant specification or for related services.

Risk of confusion

The court pointed to the misleading aspect of the element nero (Italian for “black”) in the disputed trademark.

Under the specification for PDO-FR-A1359, only white or rosé wines can be labelled as “Champagne.” And in this case, the combination of the words “Nero” and “Champagne” might:

• Suggest a non-existent variety of “black champagne”

• Erroneously suggest that the product contains a greater quantity of pinot noir grapes (aka pinot nero) or contains other grape varieties with the word nero (such as nero d’Avola)
• Evoke a mistaken impression as to characteristics of the product which champagne cannot have—because champagne can only be white or rosé.

Consequently, the trademark contains a misleading indication for purposes of Art. 103(2)(c) of Regulation 1308/2013.

Effect of the judgment and the EUIPO decision

In its judgment, the General Court ordered EUIPO to amend its decision. In compliance with the judgment and without further consideration of the appeal, EUIPO issued a decision refusing registration of the trademark “Nero Champagne” for goods in class 33 and services in classes 35 and 41.

This relegated the notion of “black champagne” to the realm of marketing fantasy.

Why is the ruling important?

The judgment from the General Court constitutes a significant strengthening of geographical indications in the EU. It sends clear signals to the entire industry:

• A protected designation of origin isn’t just window dressing, but also a powerful regulatory tool.
• The reputation of the PDO “Champagne” is especially strong.
• Even if a product meets the requirements for the PDO, use of the PDO in compliance with the specification doesn’t necessarily mean that the product is not taking unfair advantage of the designation.

Champagne producers must thus display caution and avoid the use of references to colour which could give a false or misleading impression of the nature of the wine (in the case of the PDO “Champagne,” the wine can only be white or rosé).

For its part, EUIPO should conduct a more detailed analysis of trademark applications alluding to protected designations of origin. Trademarks containing a PDO cannot automatically be upheld even if they are limited to products complying with the regulations. Consequently, it must be examined on a case-by-case basis whether the trademark exploits the reputation or characteristic features of the PDO. If it does, then the trademark should not be registered, and if it has already been registered, it is subject to cancellation.

Marzena Białasik-Kendzior, Intellectual Property practice, Wardyński & Partners