Landtsheer Emmanuel S.A. Vs Comite Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne

Résumé du document

De Landtsheer SA , a Belgian company, produces and markets several varieties of beer under the trade mark "Malheur.? In 2001 it launched a beer under the name "Malheur Brut Réserve?, which was brewed using a process based on the production method for sparkling wine and which it wished to brand as an exceptional product. At the time of the launch of the product, De Landtsheer used the expression "Champagnebier? to make a point, that it was a beer made according to the "méthode champenoise? (champagne method).

Extraits

[...] Moreover, De Landtsheer extolled the originality of the new beer, Malheur, by ascribing to it the characteristics of a sparkling wine and, in particular, those of champagne. Producers of champagne react, claiming they were “exploited”. On 8 May 2002, the CIVC and Veuve Clicquot brought an action against De Landtsheer before the Tribunal de commerce de Nivelles (Commercial Court of Nivelles, Belgium), seeking, in particular, a prohibition on the use of the wording set out above. Noticing that the mentions referring to Champagne are forbidden for two legal reasons: They are misleading customers They constitute a comparative illicit advertising What are the European legal dispositions about comparative advertising Identification of the legal problem Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 concerning misleading and comparative advertising (OJ 1984 L 250, p. [...]

[...] It is possible to compare your product to any competitor or designation of origin of competing products. Consequences of judgment for business A comparative advertising is legal as long at it does not make profit, by using notoriety of a brand, a commercial name or to others sign distinctive of a competitor or designation of origin of competing products. The useful effect of this directive would be compromised if the products not having a designation of origin were prevented to be compared with others that benefit of such designation. [...]

[...] De Landtsheer withdrew its use of the designation of origin “Champagne” in the expression “Champagnebier” but it appealed against that judgment in relation to all other elements of the case. The CIVC and Veuve Clicquot brought a cross‑appeal relating to the use of the wording ‘BRUT', ‘ RÉSERVE', ‘BRUT RÉSERVE' and ‘La première bière BRUT au monde'. The Cour d'appel (Court of Appeal), Brussels, considered that an interpretation of the directive was necessary to enable it to resolve the case. [...]

[...] Malheur_Brut_75_cl_Fles.jpg The wording “BRUT RÉSERVE”, “La première bière BRUT au monde” (“The first BRUT beer in the world”), “Bière blonde à la méthode traditionnelle” (“Traditionally‑brewed light beer”) and “Reims-France” as well as a reference to the winegrowers of Reims and Épernay appeared inter alia on the bottle, on a leaflet attached to the bottle and on the cardboard packaging. At the time of the launch of the product, De Landtsheer used the expression “Champagnebier” to make the point that it was a beer made according to the “méthode champenoise” (champagne method). [...]

[...] Does the situation misleading consumers? According to the Cour, these question must be examined to the light of the objectives of the directive: Showing advantages of the different comparable products to stimulate the competition between the suppliers of goods and services in the interest of the consumers Does the situation constitute a comparative advertising that was not permitted? Directive concerning misleading and comparative advertising have to be interpreted as meaning that a reference in an advertisement to a type of product and not to a specific undertaking or product can be considered to be comparative advertising where it is possible to identify that undertaking or the goods that it offers as being actually referred to by the advertisement. [...]