Can a clothing manufacturer designate the colour of its clothes with 'champagne', or is that a violation of the Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) for Champagne? The interim relief judge in The Hague found 'champagne' to be a common colour designation. By using this, a clothing manufacturer does not benefit from the reputation of the protected name for sparkling wines.

In May, Dutch customs informed the advocacy group for Champagne farmers and producers, the CIVC, that a batch of clothing had been stopped because the word 'champagne' was on the labels. 'Champagne' is a Protected Designation of Origin ('PDO'), just like Feta and Prosciutto di Parma, for example. A PDO is like a quality label that guarantees consumers that a product comes from a specific region and meets certain quality requirements.

According to CIVC, the use of 'champagne' on the clothing label constitutes exploitation, dilution and/or damage to the reputation of the PDO 'Champagne'. The clothing manufacturer would thereby take unfair advantage of  that reputation. The clothing manufacturer points out that a colour designation is mandatory on a clothing label and that 'champagne' is a common designation for a beige-like colour.

According to the court (in Dutch), the average consumer will perceive the word 'champagne' on a clothing label as a (common) colour indication and not as a guarantee of quality. On the contrary, the reputation of the PDO 'Champagne' is linked to the sparkling wines under that name. Clothing has nothing to do with that. So the court holds that no link with the wins Champagne is caused among consumers, so the clothing manufacturer does not benefit from the reputation of PDO 'Champagne' either. In wonder whether this is the end of this matter matter. I can imagine that a well-designed market research may show that clothing consumers actually do make a connection with wine.

Luna Snellenberg