EUIPO Clarifies Limits of Champagne Geographical Indication Protection, Rejects Attempt to Block “CHAMPAIGN” Grill Mark
The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) has clarified how far the protection of well-known geographical indications can reach. By rejecting the Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne (the Interprofessional Committee of Champagne Wine, which oversees and protects the Champagne name and production standards) in its attempt to block U.S.-based Monument Grill LLC’s figurative “CHAMPAIGN” trademark for cooking appliances, the EUIPO has signalled that even the world’s most celebrated wine region cannot automatically prevent the use of similar names for unrelated products. The ruling will stand unless the Comité appeals before the August 2025 deadline.
Background and Procedure
The Comité Champagne, advised by Altius in Brussels, filed its opposition in October 2022 against Monument Grill’s European trademark application for “CHAMPAIGN,” a mark featuring the word “CHAMPAIGN” with a stylised letter “m” shaped like a cooking utensil. The application covers grills, gas burners, refrigerators and roasters under Class 11. The Comité based its objection on Article 8(6) of the European Union Trade Mark Regulation and the Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) “Champagne” under Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013. It argued that the mark would take unfair advantage of Champagne’s reputation and risked diluting its prestige.
Initially, the EUIPO’s Opposition Division dismissed the opposition in October 2023, finding no infringement under the applicable GI rules. On appeal, the Board of Appeal annulled that decision in September 2024, concluding that the Opposition Division had overlooked changes brought in by Regulation 2021/2117. The new provisions expanded GI protection to cover any use that might weaken or dilute the reputation of a protected name. The case returned to the Opposition Division for a fresh assessment.
Key Findings
No Qualifying Use of the PDO
The EUIPO found that Monument Grill’s mark did not amount to direct or indirect commercial use of the Champagne PDO. The word “CHAMPAIGN” does not replicate “Champagne” exactly and the stylised “m” shaped like a cooking utensil creates a clear link to kitchen and grilling equipment rather than sparkling wine. Evidence that “Champaign” sometimes appears as a misspelling or informal variant for Champagne in wine contexts did not convince the panel, as it was irrelevant to grills or gas burners.
Insufficient Proof of Exploitation
The EUIPO accepted that Champagne enjoys an exceptional reputation but ruled that the Comité had failed to show any real exploitation or harm under Article 95(1) of the EUTMR. The Comité’s argument that grills naturally “accompany wine” did not suffice without concrete evidence such as surveys or consumer research. The notion that household appliances would degrade the Champagne name was dismissed as unsubstantiated and speculative. The decision noted that accepting such claims without proof would effectively transform geographical indications into broad trademarks covering unrelated markets, which EU law does not allow.
No Evocation
Applying the Court of Justice’s Verlados standard, which requires a direct mental link with the protected name, the Opposition Division found that the mark did not evoke the Champagne PDO. It pointed to three decisive factors: the clear difference between wine and cooking appliances, the conceptual break created by the utensil-shaped “m” and the fact that “Champaign” is also a dictionary word for open countryside in English. A partial textual overlap was not enough to establish a connection in the minds of average consumers.
Evidence Limited to Food and Drink
The Comité submitted extensive evidence of Champagne’s global prestige, including market data, past infringement actions and examples of the name misused in restaurants and bars. The EUIPO recognised that these showed the strength of the PDO in its natural category but noted that they related to food and beverage contexts only. Screenshots showing “Champaign” used for sparkling wine were irrelevant when assessing cooking appliances and the opposition failed because the evidence did not demonstrate any real link between grills and wine.
Implications for GI Holders and Future Oppositions
This ruling sets practical limits for enforcing geographical indications. First, phonetic similarity alone does not extend protection to unrelated products without clear evidence of reputational harm. Second, distinctive design features can reduce any connection to a protected name. Third, GI holders must demonstrate how a non-competing product actually takes advantage of or weakens their reputation, as general assertions of prestige are not enough. For companies like Monument Grill, the decision provides certainty that well-known European GIs cannot prevent trademarks for unrelated goods without specific proof.
Conclusion
By applying Regulation 1308/2013 in its updated form, the EUIPO’s ruling shows that even the most established designations must meet specific evidentiary requirements when opposing trademarks outside their original product category. The Comité Champagne has until August 2025 to decide whether to pursue an appeal before the Court of Justice of the European Union. If no appeal is filed, the decision will stand as a point of reference that geographical indications remain protected within defined limits.
Sources: