The Champagne protected designation of origin (PDO) is actively defended ou enforced by the CIVC (Committee for the protection of Champaign) which sues any commercial use of this term, or a similar one.
The CIVC brought proceedings in Germany against the German company ALDI for its use of the trademark CHAMPAGNER SORBET in relation to a frozen product containing 12% of Champaign.
Within this procedure, the Court of appeal referred the Court of Justice of the European Union on the following question : “ the use of CHAMPAGNER SORBET for a foodstuff that does not correspond to the product specifications for the PDO Champaign but containing an ingredient that does correspond to those specifications does it constitute exploitation of the reputation of a PDO, if that foodstuff does not have, as one of its essential characteristics, a taste attributable primarily to the presence of that ingredient in the composition of the foodstuff ?”
The Court answered in the decision dated December 20, that the “use of a PDO for a foodstuff that does not correspond to the product specifications for that PDO but contains an ingredient that does correspond to those specifications, such as ‘Champagner Sorbet’, constitutes exploitation of the reputation of a PDO, if that foodstuff does not have, as one of its essential characteristics, a taste attributable primarily to the presence of that ingredient in the composition of the foodstuff.”
Even though the protection of PDO is necessary, this decision is a light softening, which is to be appreciated considering the systematic reaction of the CIVC.
