Bollinger v Costa Brava Wine Co Ltd

“Geographical names cannot be used to mislead.”

SHORT DESCRIPTION

The decision in Bollinger v Costa Brava Wine Co Ltd is a classic and influential case on passing off and the protection of geographical indications. The English High Court recognised that certain geographical names, such as “Champagne,” have acquired a distinctive reputation associated with quality, origin, and method of production. The case established that using such names for unrelated or inferior products amounts to misrepresentation and damages the goodwill of genuine producers.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Champagne is a sparkling wine produced exclusively in the Champagne region of France using a traditional method. The name “Champagne” had, over time, acquired a worldwide reputation denoting quality and geographical origin. Costa Brava Wine Co Ltd, an English company, began marketing a Spanish sparkling wine under the description “Spanish Champagne.”

The Champagne producers, represented by Bollinger and other houses, brought an action for passing off. They argued that the use of the word “Champagne” for wine not produced in the Champagne region was misleading and diluted the goodwill associated with the name.

ISSUES INVOLVED

The primary issue before the Court was whether the term “Champagne” had acquired sufficient goodwill in England to be protected under the law of passing off. The Court also considered whether consumers would be misled into believing that “Spanish Champagne” originated from the Champagne region or was associated with genuine Champagne producers.

ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES

The Champagne producers argued that “Champagne” was not merely a descriptive term but a name with a strong reputation linked to a specific geographical origin. They contended that the defendant’s use caused confusion and harmed the reputation of genuine Champagne.

Costa Brava Wine Co Ltd argued that the term “champagne” was used descriptively to refer to a type of sparkling wine and that consumers were aware the product was Spanish, not French.

FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURT

The Court ruled in favour of the Champagne producers. It held that “Champagne” had acquired a distinctive secondary meaning in England, referring exclusively to wine produced in the Champagne region. The use of the term “Spanish Champagne” was found to be misleading, as it suggested a connection with genuine Champagne.

The Court emphasised that even if consumers knew the product was Spanish, the use of the name still took unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Champagne producers.

SUGGESTION / PRACTICAL TAKEAWAY

This case demonstrates the strong protection available for geographical indications and well-known regional names. Businesses must avoid using geographical terms that carry established goodwill unless their products genuinely originate from that region. Producers should actively enforce their rights to prevent dilution of reputation.

JUDGMENT

Year: 1960

The High Court of Justice restrained the use of the term “Spanish Champagne,” holding that it amounted to passing off.