Unilever, the Anglo-Dutch cosmetics giant, was sentenced Friday by a court in The Hague to withdraw from sale all its shampoos “Andrélon Champagne” and to refrain immediately from the use the use of the denomination Champagne in its advertisements. This judgement follows a complaint from the Comité interprofessionnel du vin de Champagne (CIVC).

Under the terms of the decision dated October 8: [1] “Unilever has infringed on the denomination Champagne, which is a Protected Designation of Origin, by selling a shampoo called Champagne, as forbidden by article 118m of the Regulation 491/2009.” [2] According to the court, the use of the word champagne, as well as the multiple advertisements referring directly to the famous liquor, were a very clear breach of the European legislation, which prohibits the exploitation of “the reputation of a designation of origin or a geographical indication.” [3]

The court has therefore prohibited Unilever to continue the sale and the promotion of its shampoo, backing up its injunction by a penalty payment of 5.000 euros per day, with a maximum of 500.000 euros.

According to press reports in the Netherlands, 340,000 bottles of “Andrélon Champagne” had been produced to mark the 70th anniversary of the Andrélon brand.

This is not the first time that the use of the word champagne in the cosmetics industry raises protests from the French producers. In particular, one can remember the long legal battle who opposed the CIVC and Yves Saint Laurent after the launch of the Champagne perfume in 1993, which was eventually renamed Yvresse, after the French perfume house was sentenced for parasitism.

“This decision confirms that protected designations of origin or geographical indications names are effective legal tools to fight against some commercial uses, which can be characterized as a misappropriation of notoriety. The famous decision Comité Interprofessional du vin de Champagne vs. Société Yves Saint-Laurent, rendered by the Court of Appeal of Paris on December 15, 1993, demonstrates it perfectly,” said Matthew Bourgeois, lawyer, and specialist in trademark law and intellectual property rights at law firm KGA.

“The EU regulation and relating case law are all the more remarkable that they can punish any use of a protected name, like Champagne, for different products, including cosmetics. “