How EU rules on protected terms reshape branding in the alcohol-free market
On 13 November 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered a landmark judgment on the protection of regulated designations, confirming that an alcohol-free product may not use the designation “gin”, even when it is clearly labelled as “alcohol-free”. This ruling comes at a time when the no- and low-alcohol market is expanding significantly across the EU, raising complex regulatory and branding questions for producers and trademark applicants. The judgment clearly illustrates the European legislature’s and the Court’s intention to ensure strict protection of legally defined designations and to maintain consistency between sector-specific legislation and trademark law, particularly regarding misleading signs.
Strict interpretation of Regulation (EU) 2019/787 on spirit drinks
The term “gin” is precisely defined in EU legislation on spirit drinks. Under Regulation (EU) 2019/787, “gin” must be a juniper-flavoured spirit containing a minimum alcohol content of 37.5%. The definition is not merely descriptive but operates as a legal reservation of the designation. The CJEU recalls that compliance with these criteria is mandatory and that the designation may be used only for products that strictly fulfil these requirements.
The Court rejects the argument that the mention “alcohol-free” could prevent any deception. It considers that the use of the regulated designation is itself likely to mislead, given the immediate and well-established consumer association between the term “gin” and an alcoholic product. Such clarification therefore does not neutralize the unlawful nature of the designation.
Consistent case-law on protected and regulated designations
This judgment forms part of a line of decisions reaffirming the strong protection granted to regulated or protected designations. The Court has repeatedly sanctioned the use of terms evoking geographical indications or specific sectoral designations, even when they are not used literally.
- In the Glen Buchenbach case, the Court held that a German whisky could not use a term evocative of Scotch Whisky when it did not meet the relevant criteria.
- Likewise, in Pacharán Navarro, the Court prohibited the use of the designation “pacharán” for a liqueur that failed to comply with the legal specifications governing its composition.
- The TofuTown judgment clarified the prohibition on using the terms “milk”, “butter”, or “cheese” to describe plant-based products, as these designations are strictly reserved for dairy products.
- The Court applied the same approach in the case concerning the designation “cocoa” (C-149/17), holding that a product that does not meet the minimum cocoa content required by regulation cannot legally be marketed as “low-fat cocoa”.
More recent case-law of the General Court follows the same line, notably in Beamish Porter (T-469/20), where using the designation “Porter” for a beer that did not meet the applicable criteria was deemed unlawful.
The present judgment confirms this principle: when the European legislature expressly defines a designation, it is protected against any use likely to undermine market clarity or fair commercial practices, regardless of accompanying clarifications such as “alcohol-free” or “plant-based”.
Parallel with trademark law: prohibition of misleading signs
The decision has particular relevance in trademark law. Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 prohibits the registration of trademarks that are liable to deceive the public, especially as to the nature, quality, or geographical origin of the goods. A similar provision exists in Benelux law (Article 2.2bis.1(e) BCIP).
Administrative decisions from the EUIPO reflect the same approach: the Office systematically refuses signs containing the terms “rum”, “whisky”, or “vodka” for alcohol-free products, as these designations are legally defined and strictly reserved for spirit drinks complying with Regulation (EU) 2019/787. Using these terms for alcohol-free products inevitably misleads consumers regarding their nature, even when accompanied by corrective mentions such as “zero”, “free”, or “0%”.
Applying the reasoning of the Court’s judgment to trademark law clearly shows that any sign including the designation “gin” for alcohol-free beverages would be inherently misleading, irrespective of clarifying terms such as “alcohol-free”. European offices already apply this principle. The EUIPO has notably refused trademarks such as “GIN ZERO” for non-alcoholic beverages, and has also rejected signs such as “WHISKY ZERO”, “RUM FREE”, “VODKA 0.0”, and “TEQUILA ZERO”, considering that using these legally defined terms for alcohol-free drinks is inherently misleading.
The BOIP takes the same view, refusing signs such as “Gin Kitchen”, “Champagne 0%”, or “Prosecco Frizzante Alcohol-Free” on the ground that these terms enjoy strict regulatory protection and cannot be applied to products that do not meet the relevant criteria.
This reasoning extends well beyond the spirits sector. The EUIPO applies sector-specific regulations just as strictly in other fields, refusing signs such as “Vegan Cheese Mix”, “Soya Cheese”, “Plant-Based Butter”, or “Almond Milk” because “milk”, “cheese”, and “butter” are legally reserved for dairy products and cannot be used for plant-based alternatives; even with corrective indications. The Office also refuses marks that take undue advantage of protected designations such as “Feta Style”, “Parmigiano Wear” or “Roquefort Cosmetics” where these terms constitute an unlawful evocation of PDOs or PGIs. The BOIP adopts the same strict line, rejecting signs like “Feta Style”, “Soya Cheese”, “Chablis Café” or “Salami Vegan” as using these designations on products or services that do not comply with the relevant specifications would necessarily mislead consumers.
This section strongly supports keywords such as misleading trademarks EU, protected designations EU, and alcohol-free beverages branding.
Non-regulated designations: a more flexible but still controlled assessment
Conversely, some common designations are not governed by sector-specific regulations, for example terms referring to shapes, culinary uses, or generic food concepts. In such cases, the assessment of potential deception is more nuanced.
Thus, EU offices generally accept the use of terms such as “veggie burger”, “vegan sausage”, or “plant-based nuggets”. These designations do not correspond to a legally defined category and do not necessarily imply a specific composition. They refer more to a form or culinary use than to a regulated product nature.
However, this relative flexibility does not mean there is no control at all. The EUIPO recently refused the trademark “MYBACON” for plant-based goods, finding that the term “bacon” could lead consumers to expect an animal-derived product. This refusal shows that even in the absence of a specific regulation, a sign may be considered misleading when the designation traditionally implies a specific nature or composition.
A clear distinction therefore emerges:
- When a designation is regulated, protection is absolute.
- When it is not, the analysis depends on consumer perception and risk of deception.
Practical implications for trademark applicants and branding strategy
This judgment should encourage businesses to review carefully the designations they intend to use or register as trademarks. Using regulated terms or terms socially associated with a specific composition carries a high risk of refusal or litigation. Before filing or adopting a product name, operators should:
- determine whether the designation is legally defined, protected, or reserved,
- assess whether the sign could imply a composition that the product does not have,
- consider alternative wording free from regulatory constraints.
For alternative products such as alcohol-free beverages, plant-based substitutes, or reformulated foods, it is advisable to avoid any direct or indirect reference to protected designations and instead choose fanciful signs or suggestive terms free of legal ambiguity.
Conclusion
The “Virgin Gin Alkoholfrei” judgment reaffirms the primacy of regulated designations in EU law and their protection against any use likely to mislead consumers. It strengthens coherence between sector-specific regulation and trademark law, reminding market operators that misleading signs will be refused or prohibited, even when accompanied by explicit clarifying indications.
Businesses should draw the necessary lessons to adapt their communication, labelling and trademark strategies to avoid regulatory non-compliance and refusal based on the misleading nature of the sign.
