This case was brought by the Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne (CIVC) against a private individual over the latter’s use of the term “Champanillo” to describe his pub-and-beer-bar business, which, according to the CIVC, could constitute an infringement of the Champagne Protected Designation of Origin (PDO).

The claim brought by CIVC was initially dismissed based on the differences between the products in question and their target audiences. The sign ‘Champanillo’ did not designate a wine or alcoholic beverage, but rather restaurants (tapas bars) where there was no indication that champagne was being sold. Consequently, no infringement of the scope of protection of the disputed PDO was found.

In the appeal proceedings, the Provincial Court of Barcelona referred a question to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling to determine whether the scope of protection of a PDO extended not only to similar products but also to services that might be linked to the distribution of those products. In its judgment of 9 September 2021 (see more) the CJEU answered the questions raised, holding that the protection afforded by PDOs extends to linked products and services; in other words, it is not required for the protected products and the disputed goods and services to be identical or similar, but rather it is sufficient that the disputed sign evokes in the mind of the average consumer a direct and unambiguous link between the sign and the PDO.

Pursuant to the aforementioned judgement, the Provincial Court of Barcelona upheld the appeal and annulled the previous judgment of the Commercial Court, thereby upholding the CIVC’s claim, as the sign “Champanillo” was similar to the Champagne PDO and the use of such sign to designate services linked to the marketing or consumption of beverages of the same type as the product covered by the PDO, constituted an unfair exploitation of the reputation enjoyed by the products covered by the Champagne PDO.

The defendant appealed against the judgment of the Provincial Court, alleging a breach of the Spanish Supreme Court’s doctrine in the interpretation of the concept of “evocation”, as it wasn’t taken into account the dissimilarity between the goods and services distinguished by both parts. Furthermore, the defendant considered that the disputed signs were dissimilar in both visual and phonetic terms, and in any event the goods and services differ so greatly that under no circumstances the sign “Champanillo” could give rise to such an evocation.

Finally, the Spanish Supreme Court dismissed the claimant’s appeal, ruling that the criteria used by the Provincial Court to assess the evocation of the ‘Champagne’ PDO was correct, as it was in line with the case law settled by the Court of Justice. Consequently, the use of the disputed sign ‘Champanillo’ to designate bar and pub services evokes the PDO ‘Champagne’, creating in consumers a sufficiently direct and unambiguous link between the two. Consequently, the claim regarding the use of the ‘Champanillo’ sign is upheld.

Spanish Supreme Court Judgment nº 530/2026 of 8 April 2026