Champagne in your trademark? Bubbles with an aftertaste

Champagne: a product associated with luxury, success and celebration.

The name Champagne has been a Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) since 1908 and is therefore legally protected. Only sparkling wines produced in the Champagne region of France may bear the name.

The Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne (CIVC), the interprofessional body representing winegrowers, cooperatives, and traders, is responsible for enforcing the protection of the Champagne name—and does so actively. For example, a shampoo was prohibited from using the name Champagne, even though one of the ingredients was actually Champagne. Similarly, action was taken against ice cream labeled as Champagne-flavored. Champagne-colored clothing? That was found to be permissible.

Recently, the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) had to deal with another "Champagne case." An Italian company applied to register the wordmark CHAMPRICE for restaurant services. A "champagne price"? No, according to the applicant, it was a blend of "champagne" and "rice," meant to reflect a dining concept featuring champagne and risotto.

The protection of a PDO such as Champagne is broad: not only does it cover direct use, but also imitation, misuse, or suggestive references that could harm the reputation or unfairly benefit from the fame of the protected name. Authorities consider factors such as the similarity between the names, the nature of the products or services, and whether the public might perceive an economic or commercial link with the protected designation.

The EUIPO’s Opposition Division examined whether CHAMPRICE unlawfully evoked an association with Champagne. The CIVC submitted compelling evidence of Champagne’s exceptional reputation. The Opposition Division then compared the marks CHAMPRICE and CHAMPAGNE. CHAMPRICE reproduces a substantial part of the protected name CHAMPAGNE: both begin with “CHAMP” and end with an “E”. The only differences are in the middle letters “AGN” versus “RIC”. In short, there is a clear visual and phonetic similarity.

In the case of CHAMPRICE, EUIPO’s Opposition Division noted that a substantial part of the name CHAMPAGNE is reproduced: both terms begin with “CHAMP” and end with an “E.” The differences — ‘AGN’ vs. ‘RIC’ in the middle — are not enough to offset the visual and phonetic similarity. The fact that CHAMPRICE was filed for restaurant services is irrelevant, as restaurants and champagne are clearly economically and functionally linked — champagne is widely known to be served in the hospitality sector.

Given the extraordinary reputation of Champagne, the clear visual and phonetic similarities, and the connection between the protected wine and the services in question, the Opposition Division concluded that consumers would draw a direct association between CHAMPRICE and the wine CHAMPAGNE. As such, CHAMPRICE would take unfair advantage of Champagne’s reputation. The opposition filed by the Comité was successful.

Are you using a name that resembles a Protected Designation of Origin or Geographical Indication (think Champagne, Roquefort, Parma ham, or Cognac)? Then you're walking on thin ice. Even creative or humorous variations can run into legal trouble if they evoke too close an association with a protected product.

Author: Erwin Haüer

Bio: Erwin is a trademark attorney and, as the managing partner, in charge of IT and Information Management. He works extensively with startups and scale-ups, while his clientele also includes numerous multinational corporations. Erwin possesses a sharp wit and a keen eye for remarkable trademark news and curious brand infringements.