Judgment of 25 June 2025 in Case T-239/23, NERO CHAMPAGNE / Champagne (GI), EU:T:2025:638
The NERO CHAMPAGNE trademark judgment addresses the relationship between EU trademark registration and the protection of geographical indications.
On 25 June 2025, the General Court of the European Union delivered its judgment in Case T-239/23. The dispute concerned the registration of the “NERO CHAMPAGNE” trademark.
The opposition relied on the earlier protected designation of origin (PDO) “Champagne”.
The dispute concerned goods and services in Classes 33, 35 and 41. These included only products complying with the specifications of the PDO “Champagne” and services related to those products.
In its judgment, the General Court partially annulled the decision of the EUIPO Board of Appeal. It also upheld the opposition based on the protected designation of origin.
NERO CHAMPAGNE Trademark Judgment: Compliance with PDO Specifications
One of the main questions concerned the use of a protected designation of origin within a trademark.
More specifically, the Court examined whether such use is permissible when the goods comply with the specifications of the relevant designation.
The General Court confirmed that, in principle, a presumption applies. Under this presumption, a trademark containing a PDO does not unfairly exploit its reputation when its registration covers exclusively compliant products or related services.
This approach is known as the limitation theory.
The EUIPO Guidelines also address this approach in connection with Article 8(6) of the European Union Trade Mark Regulation.
The Presumption Can Be Rebutted
However, the Court clarified that parties may rebut this presumption.
Compliance with PDO specifications does not automatically exclude the possibility of unfair exploitation. The same applies when the trademark covers services related to compliant products.
Therefore, EUIPO must assess the specific characteristics of the trademark and all relevant circumstances.
Based on this assessment, EUIPO must determine whether the evidence rebuts the presumption.
The Court explains these findings in paragraphs 58, 59 and 68 of the judgment.
Could the NERO CHAMPAGNE Trademark Mislead Consumers?
The General Court also examined whether the trademark could mislead consumers under Article 103(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.
The word “NERO” means “black” in Italian.
According to the Court, consumers may interpret this word in different ways.
For example, they may associate it with a grape variety, such as Pinot Nero or Nero d’Avola. Alternatively, they may understand it as a reference to the colour of the wine.
This distinction is important because the specifications of the PDO “Champagne” permit white or rosé Champagne, but not black Champagne.
In paragraphs 80–83, the Court examined these possible interpretations when assessing whether the sign could mislead consumers.
Significance of the Judgment for EU Trademark Registration
The NERO CHAMPAGNE trademark judgment provides an important clarification regarding trademarks containing protected designations of origin.
In particular, limiting goods and services to those complying with PDO specifications does not guarantee trademark registration.
When assessing such applications, EUIPO must consider several factors:
- Whether the goods and services comply with the relevant PDO specifications.
- The specific characteristics of the trademark.
- How consumers may perceive the sign.
- Whether the trademark could unfairly exploit the reputation of the protected designation.
Consequently, compliance with PDO specifications represents only one element of the assessment.
The judgment highlights the importance of an individual legal assessment when applicants seek to register trademarks containing geographical indications.
Source: General Court of the European Union, Judgment of 25 June 2025 in Case T-239/23, NERO CHAMPAGNE / Champagne (GI), EU:T:2025:638.
Read the full judgment on EUR-Lex.
The information reflects the judgment cited above and does not cover any potential subsequent proceedings or judicial decisions.