Back in June 2022, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) awarded ‘Sussex’ wines Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) status. PDO status means that a product has come from (more, specifically been ‘produced, processed and prepared in’) the designated area. In simple terms, only a wine that comes from the county of Sussex can call itself a Sussex wine.
Why is this important? Simply, once a product or a collection of products have achieved a level of quality and, as a result, have established a valuable brand in the market, it would be unfair for a producer elsewhere to try and achieve leverage using the protected brand. For the customer, the conditions of the PDO include requirements and restrictions designed to maintain consistency and quality.
The PDO for Sussex wine reflects the growing regard for English made wine (sparkling wine in particular) in the last 10-15 years
For many decades, LBMW has acted for wine and spirit sector organisations and trade bodies whose producers have Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) or PDO status – for example champagne (from the Champagne region of France) and Cognac (from the Cognac region of France). The number of producers who are unaware (or disregard) a protected name is surprising… or perhaps it isn’t. Whether a transgression is wilful or not, the representative body or any producer within the PGI or PDO can and should take action to prevent chancers trying to piggyback on their hard-earned reputation. Unauthorised use of a PDO or PGI is likely to dilute the brand.
Recently LBMW successfully acted for the bodies representing Napa Valley wines (which is a PDO) and Cognac (which is a PGI) in the UK Intellectual Property Tribunal. Fuller details of the case are available here https://www.lbmw.com/site/news-updates/knowledge/Napanac-trademark but, in summary, an American producer of a brandy from Napa Valley wine was not allowed to call her drink NAPAÑAC.
It’s not hard to imagine that a producer from elsewhere in the UK or even abroad might try to use the word Sussex on its wine innocently or to take some benefit by association with the strong and growing reputation of Sussex wine. The NAPAÑAC case helpfully established the principle that it needn’t be the whole of the protected name that is used by the infringer. If part of the name (eg, ‘Suss…’ rather than the alternative) was used on an English wine from a different county, there could still be an argument that consumers could be confused.
As specialists in this niche area since the ‘Spanish Champagne’ case of 1959 including the ‘Elderflower Champagne’ case in 1993, we can help with the existing brand protection of those with PDOs and PGIs as well as assisting those with growing reputations in protecting their brand for the future.