CHAMPAIGN vs. Champagne: How Far Does a GI’s Reputation Reach?

Can a barbecue brand borrow the sparkle of Champagne? That question has now reached the EUIPO’s Boards of Appeal twice.

In July 2022, US company Monument Grill LLC applied to register a figurative CHAMPAIGN mark for Class 11 goods, including grills, barbecues, cookers, stoves, refrigerating appliances and gas lighters.

In the mark, the letter “m” is drawn as a cooking utensil.

Comité Champagne opposed under Article 8(6) EUTMR, relying on the Champagne PDO.

The Opposition Division rejected the opposition in 2023. The Board of Appeal sent the case back (R 2139/2023-2) because that decision had overlooked the 2021 amendments to the Wine Regulation, which extended PDO protection from exploitation of reputation to its weakening or dilution as well.

On re-examination in June 2025, the Opposition Division accepted that Champagne enjoys an outstanding reputation, but rejected the opposition again. It doubted that the stylised sign amounted to use of the PDO at all, found that the opponent had not shown how the mark would exploit, weaken or dilute that reputation, and saw no evocation given how different the goods are from wine.

On 24 August 2026, the Second Board of Appeal upheld the appeal and annulled that decision (R 1446/2025-2).

The Board found that the utensil did not prevent consumers from reading the letter “m”, and the Board treated CHAMPAIGN as a direct use of the PDO: visually dominated by the shared beginning “CHAMPA”, phonetically close, and conceptually understood as an English variant of Champagne. Drawing by analogy on trade mark case law, the Board held that the stronger a reputation, the more likely an unfair advantage, and that for a reputation as exceptional as Champagne’s the opponent need not prove further facts. The transfer of an image of luxury and superior quality to the goods was assessed independently of how close they are to wine. The Board did mention links through sommellerie and food pairing, but gave them no decisive weight.

The practical lessons are clear. For brand owners, publication is not clearance: the EUIPO examiner’s own-motion GI objections generally concern goods comparable to the protected product, so a mark like CHAMPAIGN for grills may pass examination and still fall in opposition. A near-homophone of a truly famous PDO is a high-risk choice in any class, and neither a figurative twist nor a “dissimilar goods” argument may be enough to save it. For GI holders, the decision suggests that the most prestigious designations can be protected much like trade marks with a reputation, with a lighter burden of proof as reputation grows.

Sources:

EUIPO Opposition Division, decision of 12/06/2025, Opposition No B 3 180 390 – EUIPO eSearch Case Law

EUIPO Second Board of Appeal, decision of 18/09/2024, R 2139/2023-2, CHAMPAIGN (fig.) / Champagne (GI) – EUIPO eSearch Case Law

EU trade mark application No 018726840, CHAMPAIGN (fig.) – EUIPO eSearch plus

Nicolas Clarembeaux (ALTIUS), case summary of the CHAMPAIGN decision (R 1446/2025-2), published by oriGIn

What is the difference between a PDO and a PGI?

Both are EU geographical indications, but the link to the place differs. A protected designation of origin (PDO) requires that the product’s quality or characteristics be essentially or exclusively due to its geographical environment, and that production take place in the defined area; for wine, all grapes must come from that area. A protected geographical indication (PGI) requires a looser link: a quality, reputation or other characteristic attributable to the origin, with at least one production step in the area (for wine, at least 85% of the grapes). PDOs therefore tend to be the narrower and more prestigious category.

How does the EUIPO deal with trade marks that conflict with a PDO?

There are two routes. Under Article 7(1)(j) EUTMR, the examiner refuses of its own motion marks that conflict with EU-protected GIs; in practice, this check concerns goods identical or comparable to the protected product, and applicants are often able to overcome it by limiting the goods to products complying with the PDO specification. Under Article 8(6) EUTMR, persons authorised to exercise the rights in the GI, typically the producers’ association, can oppose a published application, and can also seek invalidation of a registered mark. Broader claims, such as exploitation of reputation for unrelated goods, are in practice raised through these inter partes routes.