Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) schemes remain key to ensuring authenticity and value in regional wines. As the UK and EU update their rules post-Brexit, recent cases and reforms highlight stricter enforcement, new labelling rules, and fresh challenges for producers. Here’s a quick roundup of developments from the first half of the year.
From the UK
English Wine PDOs: The Sussex region’s sparkling wines achieved Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) status in 2022 under the UK’s post-Brexit GI scheme. This move was expected to elevate the value and reputation of Sussex wines, with requirements including stringent analytical and qualitative testing, minimum bottle-aging, and hand-harvesting of grapes. The UK’s new PDO framework closely mirrors the EU’s, but recognition is no longer automatic and wine producers must apply separately to the UK and EU for protection. A wider move is underway to potentially require all English wines seeking PDO status to use whole-bunch (hand) picked grapes, with a government decision expected by year-end. Meanwhile, overall PDO work is temporarily paused pending review of these requirements – watch this space for more on this towards the end of the year.
From the EU
NERO CHAMPAGNE Trade Mark Refusal: On June 26, 2025, the EU General Court ruled that “NERO CHAMPAGNE” cannot be registered as an EU trade mark for wine and related services, even if produced according to Champagne PDO specifications. The Court found that use of NERO (commonly referencing Italian grape varieties or the colour black) with “Champagne” could mislead consumers (into thinking the product is ‘black Champagne’ – Champagne can only be white or rosé) or exploit the established reputation of the Champagne PDO, thus breaching EU PDO protections. This judgment also rejected the EUIPO’s “limitation theory” (i.e. the practice that allows trade marks that evoke a PDO provided that goods and services the mark is applied for are limited to products complying with the PDO’s specifications), emphasizing that any mark including a PDO risks refusal if it misleads or takes unfair advantage of a PDO’s reputation, even for compliant products.
Quevedo Port Decision: In February 2025, the EU General Court ruled that use of “Quevedo Port” for olive oil did not infringe the “Porto/Port” PDO for wine. The court found key differences in term and product, confirming that PDO protection is not absolute and does not extend to all unrelated goods, even if they evoke similar terms. This nuanced decision helps clarify boundaries for future PDO disputes in the EU.
SUMARONE evokes AMARONE DELLA VALPOLICELLA: The EUIPO Board of Appeal (the BoA) confirmed that SUMARONE evokes the Italian PDO “Amarone della Valpolicella,” which has a strong reputation in the EU for wines, thereby barring registration of the EU trade mark filed by Le Vigne di San Marco on the basis of likelihood of confusion with the PDO. The BoA highlighted that when faced with the name SUMARONE on wines, the average consumer, particularly the non-Italian speaking consumer, will have the image of wine with the PDO, “Amarone della Valpolicella.” This reinforces that wine PDOs with strong reputations receive extra protection from even indirect evocations in new brand names.
If you have any questions relating to wine and PDOs, please get in touch with Carol Nyahasha, or your usual Kilburn & Strode advisor.