Champagne trademark bid fizzles out in the UK
A UK company has been denied a trademark for a range of flooring products using the names ‘Caviar’ and ‘Champagne’ after opposition from the trade body that represents Champagne producers and houses.
Ball & Young, based in Corby in Northamptonshire, had applied to trademark ‘Cloud 9 Caviar and Champagne collection’ at the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) but faced opposition from the Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne (CIVC).
During the opposition hearing, Ball & Young pointed out that Champagne is also a colour, is commonly used in such phrases including “Champagne lifestyle” and that Champagne producers should not have a monopoly over use of the name.
But the IPO’s hearing officer Allan James said Ball & Young was seeking to “take advantage” of the Champagne name, the BBC reported.
Although James said it was unlikely that anyone would be confused between sparkling wine and floor products, he said the word ‘Champagne’ is protected under EU law and that Ball & Young’s plans “would exploit the reputation” of Champagne.
Champagne is protected by strict rules that mean it can be produced only at certified vineyards and by specific methods in its home region in northern France. It has geographical indication protection in the EU.
Mark Lubbock, partner at law firm Ashurst in London, said Champagne houses have been known to take a firm stand to protect the Champagne brand.
“Over the years, European courts and legislation have expanded the protection offered to trademarks and designations of origin so as to prevent ‘free-loaders’ from ‘riding on the coat-tails’ by taking advantage of their reputation, including in relation to completely different goods and services," he said.
“In this decision, the IPO accepted that the provisions of the EU regulation on geographical indications relating to the unauthorised exploitation of reputation had been contravened. Several other grounds, including passing off, were rejected by the IPO, who seemed unhappy at the width of the attack mounted by the Champagne houses.”
The CIVC has not shied away from protecting its intellectual property from alleged infringement in the past.
Previously WIPR reported on the dispute between the CIVC and Australia-based wine critic Jayne Powell, who calls herself “Champagne Jayne”.
The Australian Federal Court is currently debating the outcome of that dispute after the CIVC accused Powell of trademark infringement for using the nickname. However, she also provides advice on wines that are not Champagne.
The CIVC declined to comment on the outcome of the IPO case.
Ball & Young declined to comment.
