German Supreme Court publishes reasoning in Aldi Champagne dispute
Germany’s highest court has placed the burden on France's Champagne trade association to prove that the ingredient of Champagne does not determine the taste of Aldi’s disputed ‘Champagner Sorbet’ product.
That's according to published reasoning for an earlier decision in a dispute between the trade association and the German retailer.
The French Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne (CIVC) had brought proceedings against Aldi over the ‘Champagner Sorbet’, which was sold in its German stores in 2012 and contained 12% Champagne, in an attempt to halt sales of the product under that name.
In response, Aldi claimed that the product “could not possibly be said to exploit the Champagne brand or mislead consumers”.
The Federal Court of Justice’s (the Bundesgerichtshof) reasoning was published yesterday, December 17, as reported by law firm Bardehle Pagenberg, which is representing the other defendant in the case, frozen food importer Galana.
The release said that CIVC must now submit and prove that the ingredient of Champagne does not determine the taste of the accused ‘Champagner Sorbet’ product.
“This is also true where the product has a wine-product-like taste but where such taste is not primarily caused by Champagne but by other ingredients (such as food flavourings),” it said.
“In doing so, the taste of the product must be determined in a first step. In a second step, which may require the obtaining of an expert opinion, the cause of the taste must be investigated,” it added.
The case has now been sent back to the Munich Appeal Court for further proceedings.
It comes after Europe’s highest court, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), ruled on the case nearly exactly a year ago.
On December 20, 2017, the court said that Aldi must prove that one of the essential characteristics of ‘Champagner Sorbet’ is that its taste is primarily attributable to Champagne.
The German Federal Court of Justice had requested a ruling from the CJEU on whether the CIVC was entitled to the injunction.
Europe’s highest court found that, to determine that there has been an unlawful exploitation of the reputation of a protected designation of origin (PDO), there must have been use of the PDO which seeks to take undue advantage of its reputation.
The Federal Court of Justice then ruled on the case on July 19, but the reasoning has only recently become available. The Munich Appeal Court will now hear the dispute.
Did you enjoy reading this story? Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories like this sent straight to your inbox.
Today’s top stories
Negotiations on EU copyright reform to rumble into 2019
Pranger adds IP partner from Orrick
Already registered?
Login to your account
If you don't have a login or your access has expired, you will need to purchase a subscription to gain access to this article, including all our online content.
For more information on individual annual subscriptions for full paid access and corporate subscription options please contact us.
To request a FREE 2-week trial subscription, please signup.
NOTE - this can take up to 48hrs to be approved.
For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription that we can add you to for FREE, please email Adrian Tapping at atapping@newtonmedia.co.uk