News

Game of Thrones disqualifies Game of Döner from trademark registration

In a recent decision, the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) ruled in favor of Home Box Office, Inc. (HBO), disqualifying the trademark application for Game of Döner on the grounds that it would unfairly benefit from the reputation of the well-known Game of Thrones trademark.

The EUIPO’s opposition division recently addressed a trademark dispute involving HBO’s Game of Thrones and a German applicant’s attempt to register Game of Döner for fast-food services.
The decision underscores the protection afforded to trademarks with a reputation under article 8(5) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation (EUTMR).

Background of the case

The applicant sought to register Game of Döner as an EU trademark for services in classes 35, 43, and 45.
HBO opposed the application, arguing that the use of Game of Döner would take unfair advantage of the reputation of its Game of Thrones trademark.

Legal framework: article 8(5) EUTMR

Article 8(5) EUTMR provides that a trademark shall not be registered if it is identical or similar to an earlier trademark with a reputation, and if the use of the later mark would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of the earlier trademark.

Assessment by the opposition division

Reputation of the earlier mark

The opposition division acknowledged that Game of Thrones enjoys a high degree of reputation within the EU, particularly in relation to entertainment services.
HBO provided substantial evidence, including numerous awards and widespread merchandising, to support this claim.

Similarity of the signs

The signs Game of Thrones and Game of Döner were found to be visually and aurally similar to a certain degree.

Both share the distinctive phrase “Game of,” and the use of similar typography and imagery, such as a dragon emblem, further contributed to the perceived similarity.

Link between the marks

The division determined that the relevant public would likely establish a connection between the two marks, given the similarities and the reputation of Game of Thrones.
The use of a dragon in the Game of Döner logo was particularly noted as reinforcing this link.

Unfair advantage

It was concluded that the applicant would gain an unfair advantage by leveraging the reputation of Game of Thrones without making the necessary investments.

This would allow the applicant to benefit from the positive associations of the earlier mark, constituting an unfair advantage.

Conclusion

The EUIPO’s opposition division refused the registration of Game of Döner for all the classes it sought registration, citing the unfair advantage it would gain from the reputation of Game of Thrones.

Implications for trademark strategy

This case highlights the importance of conducting thorough trademark searches and assessments before filing applications, especially when the proposed mark bears similarities to well-known trademarks.
Businesses should be cautious to avoid potential conflicts that could lead to opposition proceedings and the refusal of trademark registration.

About Dreyfus Law Firm

At Dreyfus Law Firm, we specialize in intellectual property law, offering expert advice on trademark registration, opposition proceedings, and brand protection strategies.
Our partnership with a global network of IP attorneys ensures comprehensive support for our clients worldwide.

Dreyfus Law Firm is partnered with a global network of attorneys specializing in intellectual property law.

Join us on social media !

LinkedIn  

Instagram

FAQ

What is article 8(5) EUTMR?

Article 8(5) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation prevents the registration of a trademark that is identical or similar to an earlier trademark with a reputation if the use of the later mark would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of the earlier trademark.

Why was Game of Döner refused registration?

The EUIPO found that Game of Döner would take unfair advantage of the reputation of Game of Thrones, leading to its refusal under article 8(5) EUTMR.

Does the presence of a dragon in the logo affect the decision?

Yes, the use of a dragon, a central element in Game of Thrones, in the Game of Döner logo reinforced the perceived link between the two marks.

Read More

Can AI be held liable for infringement or plagiarism?

In an era where artificial intelligence (AI) is deeply integrated into creative and decision-making processes, a key legal question arises: can AI be sued liable for infringement or plagiarism?
As AI systems rapidly generate texts, images, and music, understanding the legal framework is crucial for businesses seeking to secure their use of AI technologies.

This article explores the allocation of liability for intellectual property (IP) infringement involving AI, the challenges under current law, and strategies businesses can adopt to mitigate risks.

Legal liability of AI: Current framework

AI lacks legal personality

Currently, no legislation, including the recently adopted European Regulation 2024/1689 on Artificial Intelligence (AI Act), recognises AI systems as independent legal entities.
AI remains a tool, devoid of legal standing. Under article 1240 of the French Civil Code and general tort law principles, only natural persons and legal entities using, developing, or commercialising AI can be held liable for harm caused.

The AI Act outlines specific obligations for high-risk systems but emphasizes that compliance and accountability rest entirely with human or legal operators, not with the AI systems themselves.

Legal uncertainty for autonomous AI creations

Copyright law, particularly under the Berne Convention and Directive 2001/29/EC, protects works created by human authors.

AI-generated content created independently, without substantial human intervention, falls outside traditional legal protections, making ownership claims and infringement actions more complex, particularly when such content unlawfully reproduces pre-existing works.

The AI Act does not create an independent IP regime for AI-generated works. However, Article 50 mandates transparency obligations, requiring users to be informed when interacting with artificially generated content. At the same time, Article 52 establishes procedures for overseeing AI models that pose systemic risks.

When AI-generated content leads to infringement: who can be held liable?

Liability of natural and legal persons operating AI

When AI-generated content infringes third-party rights, the operator of the AI system is treated as the legal author of the infringing content.

Liability is incurred regardless of intent, as exploitation alone can trigger legal consequences if it causes harm to a rights holder.

To reduce such risks, operators must:

  • Conduct systematic prior verification of AI-generated outputs;
  • Implement internal compliance protocols tailored to the specific AI system.

Liability of AI developers and suppliers

AI developers or suppliers, whether natural persons or corporate entities, can also be held liable in two key situations:

  • Failure to ensure effective human oversight, including by not providing users with the necessary information for proper understanding, monitoring, and intervention, as required by Article 14 of the AI Act;
  • Unlawful use of protected works during the model training process, constituting a separate IP infringement.

In accordance with the AI Act, providers of high-risk AI systems must:

  • Ensure the quality, representativeness, and statistical relevance of training, validation, and testing datasets (Article 10);
  • Provide detailed technical documentation, describing system characteristics, development processes, and compliance measures (Article 11);
  • Inform end users about the nature and limitations of AI-generated content, ensuring transparency and protecting user expectations (Article 50).

The DeepSeek case: a cautionary tale of AI plagiarism

In March 2024, Chinese company DeepSeek was accused of plagiarising large portions of copyright content without proper attribution.
Investigations revealed that the AI chatbot reproduced entire sections word-for-word, lacking substantial transformation or originality.

DeepSeek defended itself by arguing that the sources were public and that the reuse constituted transformative use.

However, according to international copyright standards, mere aggregation or superficial rewording is insufficient to avoid infringement when the original content remains recognisable.

This case highlights the substantial risks businesses face when training datasets are not properly vetted. It stresses the importance of:

  • Rigorous auditing of training datasets;
  • Maintaining detailed records of dataset provenance;
  • Implementing robust transparency measures for AI-generated content.

Strategies to protect your business

Establish strong internal compliance policies

  • Systematically review AI outputs before publication;
  • Train employees on intellectual property risks associated with emerging technologies;
  • Limit AI use to cases where legal risks are effectively managed.

Strengthen contractual safeguards

  • Request explicit warranties regarding the legality of training data;
  • Negotiate robust indemnification clauses to cover potential IP infringements;
  • Reject unreasonable limitations of liability in supplier agreements.

Deploy technological and legal risk management tools

  • Use advanced plagiarism detection software tailored for AI-generated content;
  • Establish internal auditing procedures and rapid response mechanisms to address identified risks.

Conclusion: anticipating and managing legal risks

AI systems, under current law, cannot be held liable.

Legal responsibility for infringement or plagiarism always rests with the natural or legal persons developing, operating, or commercialising AI solutions.

Given the new regulatory obligations imposed by the European AI Act, companies must adopt a proactive approach, integrating technical diligence, contractual safeguards, and ongoing legal oversight.

Dreyfus Law Firm works with clients in the food sector, providing specialist advice on intellectual property and regulatory issues to ensure compliance with national and European laws.

We collaborate with a global network of intellectual property attorneys.

Join us on social media !

FAQ

Can AI be sued for plagiarism or infringement?

No. Only a natural or legal person operating or developing an AI system can be held liable.

How can a company minimise its legal risks when using AI?

By implementing strict validation procedures, securing contractual protections, and regularly auditing AI-generated outputs.

Does the European AI regulation impose obligations relating to intellectual property?

Indirectly, through transparency and dataset quality requirements applicable to AI developers and deployers.

 

Read More

The social media threat: a fashion and luxury perspective

Digital infringement is no longer confined to marketplaces or anonymous domains. Today’s threatscape is defined by a structural shift in both consumer behaviour and vendor strategy: from e-commerce websites to media-first platforms, direct-to-consumer messaging apps, and short-form content ecosystems.

Social commerce is not only accelerating in reach, but fragmenting enforcement efforts, placing unprecedented pressure on brand owners to adapt, monitor, and act swiftly across decentralized channels.

Main threats targeting luxury brands on social media

Impersonation accounts and fake profiles

An alarming 22 million users are following fake fashion and luxury brand accounts across platforms. The average number of followers for counterfeit profiles has surged by 20% in 2024 alone, compared to late 2023.

These accounts typically rely on:

  • Full impersonation techniques using stolen imagery and layouts
  • Brand handle spoofing: e.g., “brandname.official” or regionalized variants
  • Bot-controlled engagement farms that artificially inflate credibility

Multi-channel counterfeit networks

Sophisticated counterfeit operators utilise multi-channel ecosystems, combining Instagram, TikTok, WhatsApp, and external fake shops to:

  • Publish “zombie listings”
  • Direct consumers to covert sales channels via private messages
  • Avoid detection by removing sales elements from visible platforms

These structures create encrypted, evasive infrastructures, requiring advanced monitoring tools and legal foresight.

Ephemeral content tactics

The exploitation of disappearing formats like Instagram Stories or Snapchat posts—which vanish after 24 hours—greatly complicates detection. These are used to:

  • Launch flash sales of counterfeit goods
  • Evade traditional traceability
  • Engage in coordinated bot repost attacks (botnets) with minimal digital footprint

Paid advertising exploitation

Malicious actors purchase social ads to actively promote counterfeit goods. Paid ads, once a trusted visibility tool, now contribute to the global reach of fake listings.

Without robust monitoring, these campaigns risk legitimising fakes in the eyes of unaware consumers.

Influencer-fueled “dupe” culture

A growing number of influencers collaborate—intentionally or unknowingly—with counterfeit promoters via affiliate schemes. In exchange for commissions, they help distribute illicit goods to mass audiences under the banner of “affordable luxury alternatives.”

This trend normalises counterfeiting, challenges brand integrity, and capitalises on viral attention cycles.

A strategic pillar-based brand protection framework

Monitoring and enforcement

An effective strategy starts with granular surveillance and prioritised action:

  • Identify high-impact infringers
  • Remove paid ads and deceptive reviews
  • Set thresholds for enforcement to optimise legal spend
  • Monitor seller communications and platform evolution
  • Quantify revenue loss and develop restitution pathways

Platform engagement and proactive escalation

Brands must shift from passive complaints to structured engagement with social platforms:

  • Audit their enforcement policies and escalation timelines
  • Supply real-time keyword lists and high-risk imagery
  • Negotiate recurring sync meetings with internal compliance teams

Rights-holder and institutional collaboration

Brand protection becomes exponentially more effective through:

  • Joint actions with IP agencies and national authorities
  • Peer-to-peer intelligence sharing among industry stakeholders
  • Cross-functional teams linking IP, cybersecurity, marketing, and legal

Key metrics to assess the brand protection

Quantifying value recovered from protection programmes is vital. Indicators include:

  • Revenue loss per engagement: e.g. Post reach × $0.05 cost per engagement (industry benchmark)
  • Illicit listing value:
    Listings removed × Avg. stock × Avg. price × 60% sell rate × 40% conversion rate × Gross margin
  • Brand sentiment & reputation:
    Social sentiment scores, complaint incident data, retailer feedback
  • Consumer trust:
    Blockchain authenticator interactions, re-purchase rates, refund/litigation trends

Conclusion: elevating protection, restoring trust

The luxury industry faces a crossroads: protect aggressively or concede ground to digital counterfeiters. With data-driven enforcement, platform engagement, and stakeholder alliances, fashion brands can turn vulnerability into opportunity, strengthening both revenue and consumer loyalty.

Dreyfus Law Firm offers tailored brand protection strategies rooted in IP law, with a proactive and international scope.

Dreyfus Law Firm is in partnership with a global network of Intellectual Property law specialists.

Join us on social media !

LinkedIn  

Instagram

FAQ

1. How many users follow fake fashion brand accounts?

More than 22 million globally, with a 20% increase in follower count in 2024 alone.

2. Why is ephemeral content hard to police?

It disappears within 24 hours, leaving little evidence for enforcement or litigation.

3. Are bots still a significant threat?

Yes. From repost storms to hashtag hijacking, bots remain central to counterfeit amplification.

Read More

European regulatory packaging: implications for trademark and design owners

The European Union has introduced Regulation (EU) 2025/40 concerning packaging and packaging waste. Although still in the process of being implemented, this regulation will have profound implications for intellectual property right (IP) owners, particularly those with trademarks and designs. While the regulation primarily addresses environmental goals, such as waste reduction and sustainability, it also introduces significant changes that IP right owners must understand to protect their interests and adapt to the evolving legal landscape.

Adopted on December 19, 2024, Regulation (EU) 2025/40 will come into full effect on August 12, 2026. It replaces Directive 94/62/EC and aligns with the EU Green Deal, aiming to reduce packaging waste and promote sustainable alternatives. The regulation mandates specific requirements for the design, production, and disposal of packaging products, urging manufacturers and importers to create packaging with sustainability in mind.

The regulation aims to minimize unnecessary packaging and encourage the use of reusable, recyclable, and eco-friendly alternatives. While these measures are environmentally driven, they directly affect IP right owners whose products are represented through packaging, particularly when it comes to trademarks and designs.

Implications for trademark owners

Packaging protected by trademarks or designs

Trademark owners must be aware of an important exemption in the regulation, which applies to packaging that features elements protected by a registered trademark or design. Packaging that incorporates distinctive features protected by trademark or design law will not be subject to the volume reduction requirements if modifying the packaging would compromise the trademark’s distinctiveness.

For instance, if a packaging design includes a specific shape or visual element that is registered as a trademark (such as a unique container shape), the regulation will not enforce volume reduction or changes that could diminish the trademark’s identity. This exemption is crucial for brand owners wishing to protect their rights, as it allows them to continue using their iconic designs without disruption. Importantly, this exemption applies only to packaging that is protected before February 11, 2025.

Compliance of new packaging

For new packaging designs incorporating a trademark or design registered after February 11, 2025, the packaging must comply with the regulation’s volume reduction requirements. Specifically, new packaging designs cannot include unnecessary components such as double walls, excessive cushioning, or extraneous layers that increase the packaging’s volume artificially. While the exemption safeguards existing trademarks and designs, new registrations will need to balance aesthetic appeal with environmental compliance.

Consequences of non-compliance

Failure to comply with the new packaging rules could lead to significant penalties, though the specific fines have yet to be defined. The regulation grants EU member states the authority to set sanctions, which must be in place by February 12, 2027. Therefore, businesses must stay vigilant and monitor the evolution of national laws to avoid potential enforcement actions.

Implications for design owners

Protection of design features

For owners of design rights, the regulation recognizes that environmental changes should not compromise the design’s distinctive characteristics. Similar to trademarks, designs registered before February 11, 2025, are exempt from certain volume reduction measures. This exemption is crucial for companies that have invested in unique and recognizable packaging designs that play a key role in their branding and market presence.

New designs and compliance

For designs registered after February 2025, the regulation will impose stricter rules concerning the reduction of unnecessary packaging components. Design owners must integrate sustainable practices into their packaging designs without compromising the design’s distinctiveness. This presents an opportunity for innovation, where design owners can create packaging that aligns with both environmental objectives and market trends.

Exceptions for geographical indications

The regulation includes a notable exception for packaging containing products with geographical indications (GIs), such as wine, cheese, and other regional products. These products are exempt from the packaging reduction requirements, regardless of when the GI was granted. This ensures that the distinctive packaging used for GI-protected products remains unaffected by the regulation’s volume reduction rules.

Conclusion: the path forward for IP right owners

As the new packaging regulations come into effect, trademark and design owners must reassess their packaging strategies. Sustainability is becoming an integral part of the business landscape, and it is vital for IP right owners to align their IP protection practices with the environmental obligations set forth in the regulation. To ensure compliance, businesses should start auditing their existing packaging designs to ensure they meet sustainability criteria while maintaining the distinctiveness of their trademarks and designs.

By staying informed about these regulatory changes, IP right owners can safeguard their intellectual property and remain competitive in an increasingly eco-conscious market. With the regulation fully implemented by 2026, proactive steps now will help avoid legal pitfalls and maintain a strong brand presence.

Dreyfus Law Firm works with clients in the food sector, providing specialist advice on intellectual property and regulatory issues to ensure compliance with national and European laws.

We collaborate with a global network of intellectual property attorneys.

Join us on social media !

LinkedIn  

Instagram

FAQ

1. What is Regulation (EU) 2025/40 on packaging and waste?

This regulation sets forth rules to reduce packaging waste, encourage recycling, and minimize unnecessary packaging across the EU.

2. How does this regulation affect trademark owners?

Trademark owners may be exempt from certain packaging volume reduction requirements if their packaging is protected by a registered trademark, as long as the changes do not affect the trademark’s distinctiveness.

3. Do all designs have to comply with the new packaging requirements?

Designs registered before February 2025 are exempt from volume reduction rules, but new designs must comply with these requirements.

Read More

EU law and Ireland’s precautionary alcohol labelling: Between public health imperatives and legal coherence

The Irish regulation adopted in 2023 under Statutory Instrument No. 249/2023, as published on the official Irish Statute Book website introducing mandatory health warnings on alcoholic beverage labelling marks a first in the European Union and has sparked considerable debate. Relying on recent scientific findings, Ireland now mandates dissuasive labels featuring textual warnings, pictograms, alcohol content in grams, and links to official public health websites.

This raises important legal questions concerning its compatibility with EU law, particularly with regard to the free movement of goods, proportionality, and the division of competences between Member States and the Union in matters of food labelling. This article explores the scope for unilateral national measures in such a sensitive domain, assessing them through the lens of EU case law, the precautionary principle, and subsidiarity.

The legal framework governing food labelling in the European Union

 The foundations of health information rights in EU Law

Articles 168 and 169 of the TFEU enshrine a dual objective: ensuring a high level of public health protection and enhancing consumer information. Regulation (EU) No. 1169/2011 is the cornerstone of EU food labelling law, but it does not mandate any health warnings on alcoholic beverages.

Progress has been limited to wine labelling, through Regulation (EU) 2021/2117, which introduced requirements to list ingredients and nutritional values, yet stopped short of incorporating the health warnings proposed by the European Commission as part of the Europe’s beating cancer plan (2021).

Residual regulatory powers of member states

In the absence of full harmonisation, Member States may introduce additional labelling requirements pursuant to Article 39 of Regulation 1169/2011, provided they notify the Commission via the TRIS procedure and respect the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination.

Ireland complied with this procedure and justified its legislation with alarming epidemiological data on youth alcohol consumption, widespread public ignorance of health risks, and the societal costs associated with alcohol use.

The Irish legislation: Scope, justification, and reach

A groundbreaking and detailed legal framework

Ireland’s 2023 decree mandates the inclusion of:

  • Three mandatory health warnings (regarding cancer, liver disease, and pregnancy)
  • Alcohol content expressed in grams and caloric information
  • Standardised pictograms and a government health information website
  • Precise requirements on typography, font size, and positioning of warnings

These rules apply to all alcoholic beverages, including wine, regardless of alcohol volume or production method.

A measure based on verified public health imperatives

The cited statistics reveal that:

  • One in five Irish drinkers exhibits alcohol-related disorders
  • Most 17-year-olds have already experienced drunkenness
  • Vast segments of the population are unaware of alcohol-related health risks

Labelling is presented as a primary prevention tool, supplementing broader public health efforts.

Compatibility with EU law: Free movement and proportionality

 Guidance from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)

CJEU case law (Bacardi, Gourmet, Scotch Whisky Association) recognises that public health protection may justify national restrictions on trade (Article 36 TFEU), provided they are:

  • Appropriate to achieve the stated objective
  • Necessary and proportionate
  • Not excessive in light of the pursued goal

 A controversial but legally tenable measure

Despite several reasoned opinions from other Member States criticising the Irish rules, the European Commission did not object. In the absence of harmonisation, national legislators retain discretion to determine the level of health protection, provided they can demonstrate a real—not hypothetical—risk and rely on scientifically credible evidence.

The absence of a recognised “safe level of alcohol consumption,” as highlighted by the WHO, lends legitimacy to a generalised precautionary approach, even with respect to wine.

The need for EU-level harmonisation

A dialogue suspended since 2021

The European Parliament’s failure to endorse the Commission’s proposals on health labelling has created a regulatory vacuum, exposing producers to diverging national obligations and fragmenting the internal market.

 Benefits of a common legislative framework

A harmonised EU approach would:

  • Ensure legal certainty for operators
  • Prevent technical barriers to intra-EU trade
  • Enable balanced public health communication
  • Avoid measures perceived as stigmatic

The focus should be on the volume and context of consumption, rather than the blanket condemnation of products with cultural and economic significance.

Conclusion: Striking a balance between public health and market cohesion

The Irish legislation addresses genuine public health concerns, supported by scientific evidence. However, in the absence of harmonised EU rules, it exposes economic operators to legal uncertainty and risks undermining the coherence of the internal market.

Only a comprehensive EU legislative initiative, combining transparency, public health efficacy, and respect for cultural traditions, can resolve the current regulatory fragmentation.

Key Takeaways:

  • Ireland’s precautionary labelling is legally grounded but raises issues of proportionality.
  • EU law does not yet impose mandatory health warnings on alcohol.
  • Without harmonisation, legal uncertainty and market fragmentation will persist.
  • A structured EU response is urgently needed to safeguard both public health and regulatory coherence.

We collaborate with a global network of intellectual property attorneys.

Join us on social media !

LinkedIn  

Instagram

Read More

Trademarks and AI: Can a Name Generated by Artificial Intelligence Be Protected?

The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) has revolutionized numerous sectors, including brand naming. Many companies now question whether a name generated by AI can benefit from legal protection as a trademark. This article reviews the relevant French legal framework and analyzes whether such a name can be registered, provided it complies with the provisions of the French Intellectual Property Code (Code de la propriété intellectuelle, CPI).

The Legal Framework for Trademarks in France

Definition and Acquisition of Trademark Rights

According to Article L.711-1 of the French Intellectual Property Code, a trademark is defined as a sign capable of distinguishing the goods or services of a natural or legal person from those of others. Ownership of a trademark is acquired through registration, pursuant to Article L.712-1 of the same code. Registration grants the holder exclusive rights over the trademark for the goods or services listed.

Conditions for Trademark Validity

For a trademark to be valid and registrable, it must meet the following conditions:

  • Distinctiveness: The sign must be capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one company from those of another.
  • Lawfulness: The sign must not be contrary to public order or accepted principles of morality.
  • Non-deceptiveness: The sign must not mislead the public, particularly regarding the nature, quality, or origin of the products or services.
  • Availability: The sign must not infringe any prior rights, such as already registered trademarks or protected business names.

These criteria are outlined in detail by the French National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI).

Applicability to AI-Generated Names

Compliance with Legal Requirements

A brand name generated by artificial intelligence may be registered in France as long as it complies with the above-mentioned conditions. The mere fact that the name is AI-generated does not preclude registration, provided it is distinctive, lawful, non-deceptive, and available. Notably, Article L.711-1 CPI does not impose any requirement regarding the origin of the sign, which means names generated by automated systems are not excluded from protection.

Specific Considerations Related to AI

Different considerations apply under copyright law. Unlike trademark law, which is focused on distinctiveness and availability, copyright protection requires human creative input and that the work reflects the author’s personality. Indeed, Article L.112-1 of the French Intellectual Property Code states that “works of the mind, whatever their genre, form of expression, merit, or purpose,” are protected, provided they are original.

As such, while a name generated by AI is unlikely to qualify for copyright protection without human input, it can nevertheless be registered as a trademark, assuming it fulfills the requirements set out in Articles L.711-1 et seq. of the CPI.

Recommendations for Businesses

Registering a trademark that results from a process involving AI requires a legally sound and strategic approach. Although the law does not exclude names generated by AI, their validity depends on a detailed legal analysis under the French Intellectual Property Code.

It is therefore essential to consult with an intellectual property expert – such as a specialized attorney or industrial property counsel – to secure the entire process. This professional can:

  • Assess the compliance of the name with the validity criteria set out in Articles L.711-1 and following, particularly its distinctiveness, lawfulness, and lack of conflict with prior rights;
  • Proceed with a thorough clearance search, which is critical to avoid future legal disputes;
  • Review the terms and conditions of the AI tools used, particularly regarding ownership or assignment of the generated content, which may include restrictive clauses;
  • Structure and document the name creation and selection process, to demonstrate, if necessary, a substantial and voluntary human intervention in the final choice.

This approach significantly strengthens the legal security of the trademark filing and helps anticipate risks related to the algorithmic origin of the sign.

Conclusion

Trademarks generated by artificial intelligence can be protected under French law, provided they meet the requirements of the Intellectual Property Code. By following the appropriate steps and involving qualified legal counsel, companies can effectively safeguard brand names created with the help of AI tools.

At Dreyfus Law Firm, we stand ready to provide comprehensive legal strategies tailored to each client’s needs. Our services include advising on trademark protection, and litigation support across multiple jurisdictions.

Dreyfus Law Firm is in partnership with a global network of Intellectual Property attorneys, ensuring comprehensive assistance for businesses worldwide.

Join us on social media !

LinkedIn  

Instagram

FAQ

1. Can an AI-generated name be registered as a trademark in France?

Yes, provided that it satisfies the criteria of distinctiveness, lawfulness, non-deceptiveness, and availability as outlined in the Intellectual Property Code.

2. Does the origin of the name (human or AI) affect its trademark validity?

No. The CPI does not distinguish based on the origin of the sign. What matters is compliance with the legal conditions for registration.

3. What are the risks of registering an AI-generated name without proper legal vetting?

There is a risk of refusal by the trademark office or future litigation if the name infringes prior rights.

Read More

Copyright and trademark in wine packaging and labeling

Key considerations for wineries and wine businesses in the United States

Wine labeling is more than just listing the varietal, region, or vintage—it’s a creative and strategic endeavor that shapes a winery’s public identity. Elements such as labels, logos, colors, fonts, taglines, and even bottle shapes can become critical assets, each subject to complex legal protections. In the United States, two primary areas of intellectual property (IP) come into play: copyright (for creative works) and trademark (for brand identifiers). When properly leveraged, these legal tools can protect a producer’s investment in design and branding, deter counterfeiters, and bolster a winery’s reputation in a crowded market.

This article delves into copyright and trademark laws as they affect the packaging and labeling of wine, highlighting the interplay with Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) regulations, and offering practical guidance for ensuring comprehensive protection of your label designs.

The importance of packaging and labeling in the wine industry

Brand differentiation and market perception

  • Visual Identity: In a sector where numerous bottles vie for attention on retail shelves, your label and packaging are often the first points of consumer engagement. A carefully crafted design can influence purchasing decisions.
  • Storytelling and Heritage: Many wineries infuse their labels with elements reflecting their history, terroir, or family legacy. Whether it’s a depiction of a vineyard landscape or a stylized crest passed down through generations, these creative visuals become a key part of the wine’s story.

(Stat Note: According to data from the Wine Market Council, up to 70% of wine-buying decisions are made in-store based on label appeal and perceived brand quality.)

The convergence of art and commerce

Wine labels transcend mere product description, often functioning as miniature works of art. This dual function—practical (identifying the wine) and artistic (evoking themes, emotions, stories)—can lead to overlapping legal protections under copyright law (protecting creative expression) and trademark law (protecting distinctive brand elements).

Copyright protection for wine labels and packaging

What copyright covers

Copyright in the United States protects “original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression.” For wine labels, this typically applies to:

  • Illustrations, graphics, and artwork: Any unique drawings, images, or decorative elements.
  • Photographs: If the label features original photography of a vineyard, estate, or other subjects.
  • Textual designs: Certain stylized text arrangements that reflect creative authorship, beyond merely stating the wine’s variety or region.

Under 17 U.S.C. § 102, you automatically hold the copyright to your label from the moment it’s created in a fixed form. However, registering the work with the U.S. Copyright Office (copyright.gov) offers additional legal benefits, including the ability to seek statutory damages and attorneys’ fees if you prevail in an infringement lawsuit.

Registration benefits and best practices

  • Enhanced enforcement: Registered copyrights provide a clear record of authorship and ownership.
  • Public notice: By registering, you publicly assert your claim, deterring would-be infringers.
  • Copyright notice: Including a notice (e.g., © [Year] [Owner Name]) on the label strengthens your position, though it is not mandatory for protection.

(Practical Tip: Some wineries register new label designs as soon as they’re finalized, particularly for high-end releases or limited-edition bottles that rely heavily on unique artwork.)

Limitations of copyright in labeling

Copyright protects creative expression, not functional or factual aspects. Consequently:

  • Mandatory statements: Label elements required by TTB regulations—such as alcohol content, origin, net contents—cannot be copyrighted. They are considered functional or factual.
  • Generic or descriptive terms: Words that merely name a varietal (e.g., “Cabernet Sauvignon”) or region (e.g., “Napa Valley”) are not subject to copyright protection.

Trademark protection in wine labeling and branding

Distinctive elements eligible for trademark

Trademarks can protect a wide range of “source identifiers,” such as:

  • Brand names and winery names: For instance, “Silver Oak” or “Jordan Winery.”
  • Logos and stylized text: A custom emblem or stylized brand wordmark.
  • Taglines or slogans: Marketing phrases that help consumers identify and recall your wine.
  • Bottle shapes or label configurations (Trade Dress): If they are distinctive and non-functional. For example, a uniquely shaped bottle could be considered protectable trade dress when the shape itself signifies the brand.

The role of the USPTO

In the U.S., trademark registration is handled by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) (uspto.gov). A federal trademark registration confers:

  • Nationwide protection: Deters infringers beyond your immediate region.
  • Legal presumptions: Proof of ownership and exclusive rights to use the mark in connection with specified goods.
  • Potential for international filing: Serves as a basis for Madrid Protocol applications via the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).

Label approval vs. trademark registration

It’s crucial to distinguish between TTB label approval and USPTO trademark registration:

  • TTB: Focuses on compliance with labeling regulations (alcohol content, origin, disclaimers). Approval does not guarantee any IP rights in the brand name or artwork.
  • USPTO: Examines distinctiveness, likelihood of confusion, and existing prior rights. A name greenlit by TTB might still face refusal or opposition at the USPTO if similar marks exist.

(Example: A wine label approved by TTB with the word “Sunset Ridge” could still be refused by the USPTO if “Sunset Ridge Cellars” is an existing registered trademark.)

Navigating overlaps and potential conflicts

Copyright vs. Trademark

  • Copyright covers the artistic aspects—illustrations, creative text layout, or photographs.
  • Trademark covers the brand name, logos, or distinct label designs recognized by consumers as indicating a particular source.
    These two can coexist. For instance, a visually ornate label design can have copyright protection for its artwork and trademark protection for the brand name or a stylized logo.

Confusion with geographic terms and appellations

Wine labeling often highlights regions or appellations (e.g., Napa Valley, Sonoma Coast, Willamette Valley). While these terms may be necessary to describe the product, they generally cannot serve as trademarks if they are considered primarily geographic.

  • Appellation conflicts: Groups like the Napa Valley Vintners Association actively defend the Napa name, ensuring it’s only used by wineries meeting certain AVA (American Viticultural Area) requirements.
  • Deceptive marks: A label referencing a region or type of wine (e.g., “Champagne,” “Port,” or “Burgundy”) without following legal standards or sourcing may be found deceptive by the USPTO and refused registration.

Common pitfalls

  1. Generic or descriptive brand names: A term like “Chardonnay Reserve” is unlikely to qualify for trademark registration if it only describes the wine.
  2. Overreliance on disclaimers: The USPTO may require disclaimers for descriptive words—such as “Winery,” “Estate,” or “Vineyards”—to avoid granting exclusive rights over generic or descriptive terms.
  3. Failure to monitor: Neglecting to keep an eye on new trademark filings or unauthorized uses of your art or brand name can allow infringers to establish competing rights.

Case studies, statistics, and a hypothetical scenario

Case study: artistic label dispute

A California boutique winery, “Moonlight Cellars,” hired a freelance artist to create a highly detailed label for its new Merlot. The label featured a watercolor painting of an owl perched under a moonlit sky.

  • Copyright conflict: The artist later discovered the winery had slightly modified her painting for limited-edition releases without seeking permission. She filed a copyright infringement claim.
  • Trademark overlap: The winery had successfully registered “Moonlight Cellars” as a trademark but had neglected to secure permission for derivative use of the artwork.
  • Outcome: Through negotiation, the winery purchased additional rights. This underscored the need for clear licensing agreements that address both the original and potential future uses of label artwork.

Stats on wine label design and IP registration

A 2025 report by the USPTO indicated that trademark applications within Class 33 (wines and spirits) rose by 12% year over year, reflecting the increasing number of independent labels and craft producers. Separately, the Graphic Artists Guild noted a 20% rise in requests for label design-related copyright registrations, emphasizing the growing commercial importance of visual identity in the wine sector.

Hypothetical client example: Golden Crest Wines

“Golden Crest Wines,” a Washington-based winery, launched a new Rosé line with a stylized gold crest design. They:

  1. Secured a trademark for the name “Golden Crest Wines” and the stylized crest logo via the USPTO.
  2. Registered the label artwork with the U.S. Copyright Office to protect the crest’s elaborate design and background art.
  3. Ensured TTB compliance by accurately listing the AVA and alcohol content.
  • Result: A cohesive IP strategy minimized the risks of both brand confusion and unauthorized replication of the label design.

Practical tips for protecting wine packaging and labels

Use written agreements for artwork

Whenever hiring freelance designers or agencies:

  • Clarify ownership: Decide whether you, as the winery, will own the full copyright upon creation, or whether the artist retains some rights.
  • License scope: Define if the artwork can be used across multiple product lines, websites, or future limited editions.
  • Work-for-hire provisions: In many cases, you must explicitly state that the work is “made for hire,” otherwise the artist may retain the copyright.

Conduct thorough searches before launch

  • USPTO TESS: Check for existing marks that could conflict with your proposed brand name, logo, or slogans.
  • Copyright Office records: If using stock imagery or previously commissioned art, ensure no overlapping claims or restrictions exist.
  • Appellation guidelines: Verify any TTB or AVA requirements for wording, disclaimers, or usage permissions.

Register, monitor, and enforce

  • Timely registration: File for trademark registration as soon as you decide on a brand. Similarly, register label designs or other major creative elements with the Copyright Office.
  • Monitoring new filings: Watch for potential conflicts in the USPTO Official Gazette and relevant creative marketplaces (e.g., popular design platforms).
  • Take swift action: If you spot an infringing label or brand name, consider sending a cease-and-desist letter or filing an opposition (for trademarks) or infringement suit (for copyright) where appropriate.

Plan for international protection

For wineries aiming to export or eventually tap into foreign markets (EU, UK, Asia, etc.):

  • Trademark extension: The Madrid Protocol allows you to extend your USPTO registration internationally through WIPO (wipo.int).
  • Labeling laws abroad: Investigate local regulations on disclaimers, mandatory health warnings, and protected geographical indications (like “Rioja” in Spain or “Bordeaux” in France).

Conclusion

In a competitive landscape where packaging and labeling speak volumes about your wine’s quality and origin, both copyright and trademark laws serve pivotal roles. Copyright can guard the creative essence of your label—its artwork, typography, and visual flair—while trademark secures your brand identity, ensuring that names and logos become cornerstones of consumer trust.

When carefully managed, these protections deter copycats, elevate brand perception, and may even become valuable business assets for expansions or partnerships. However, success hinges on anticipating legal hurdles, from TTB compliance to potential conflicts with existing marks or appellations.

Why work with Dreyfus?

  • Recognized Expertise: With over 20 years of experience in intellectual property and a deep understanding of wine regulations, our team assists clients in creating ironclad label strategies.
  • Global Network: We facilitate international registrations, ensuring that wineries eyeing overseas markets remain protected under multiple jurisdictions.
  • Tailored Guidance: Each winery’s story is unique. We offer strategic advice adapted to your creative vision, marketing goals, and compliance needs.

The cabinet Dreyfus et Associés is in partnership with a worldwide network of lawyers specialized in Intellectual Property.

Ready to protect your wine’s visual identity?

  • Contact us to develop a customized plan to safeguard your label and brand assets.
  • Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest legal updates in wine labeling and IP.
  • Download our practical guide, “5 Essential Tips for Copyright and Trademark Protection in Wine Labeling,” featuring case studies and checklists.

Additional Resources

Shape your wine’s story with confidence—fortify your labels and packaging using robust legal frameworks.

Read More

Trademark registration for a wine or a winery: key steps and common pitfalls

In the highly competitive world of wine production and distribution, standing out often hinges on building a distinctive identity—from the name of your winery or vineyard to the label on each bottle. In the United States, securing a trademark for your wine brand is one of the most effective ways to protect this identity. However, navigating the trademark system can be challenging, particularly when dealing with additional regulations related to wine labeling and geographical indications.

This article provides a detailed look at the trademark registration process for wines in the U.S., highlights frequent legal and regulatory pitfalls, and offers practical tips to safeguard your brand from costly conflicts. Whether you produce a Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon or a Willamette Valley Pinot Noir, a robust trademark strategy is vital for long-term success.

Why protect your wine brand or winery name?

Legal imperatives

  • Exclusive right to use the mark: By registering your trademark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), you gain nationwide priority over the use of the mark for the goods and services specified in your application.
  • Litigation leverage: Should a competitor attempt to adopt a similar name or label, holding a federal trademark registration bolsters your position in court. It allows you to potentially recover damages and attorneys’ fees, and it offers a legal presumption of validity and ownership of the mark throughout the U.S.
  • Protecting an intangible asset: Your brand is intellectual property that can be licensed, sold, or used as a valuable business asset. According to various industry reports, strong brand recognition can increase a winery’s overall valuation and attract investors, distributors, or joint-venture partners.

Economic stakes

  • Credibility for buyers and importers: Wine buyers—including restaurants, retailers, and wholesalers—gravitate toward well-branded products. A registered trademark signals professionalism and provides assurance that you take your business seriously.
  • Investor appeal: Private equity and other investors in the wine sector look favorably on wineries and wine brands that have protected their names. This is because a clear trademark strategy mitigates the risk of future legal complications.
  • Facilitating international expansion: With the U.S. as one of the largest wine-consuming nations in the world, many producers also aim to export. Having a federal registration can be a strong basis for filing in other countries through the Madrid System managed by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).

(Stat Note: According to the Wine Institute (wineinstitute.org), U.S. wine sales—domestic and imports—have consistently exceeded 400 million cases per year, reflecting robust demand and heightened competition in branding.)

Marketing and brand equity

  • Differentiating your AVA or winery story: American Viticultural Areas (AVAs) such as Napa Valley, Sonoma County, Willamette Valley, and Finger Lakes are integral to a wine’s identity. A trademark allows you to highlight unique qualities while avoiding consumer confusion with other wineries in the same region.
  • Long-term consumer loyalty: Once consumers come to trust a wine brand, they tend to become repeat buyers, seeking out new vintages or related labels under the same trademark.
  • Consistent branding across channels: A trademark gives you the foundation to unify your online presence, labeling, packaging, and promotional materials under a single, well-protected identity.

Trademark law and regulatory bodies in the U.S.

The USPTO

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is the primary federal agency for trademark registration. Once granted, a federal trademark registration offers protection across all 50 states and U.S. territories.

  • Term of protection: Initially valid for 10 years and renewable indefinitely, provided you file timely maintenance documents and demonstrate continued use.
  • Filing method: Online submission through the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) is the standard.

State trademarks

In addition to federal registration, some wine producers opt for state-level trademarks (e.g., California Secretary of State for wineries in Napa). However, these provide limited geographic protection. For wineries hoping to sell across state lines, a USPTO registration is more robust.

TTB labeling regulations

The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) (ttb.gov) oversees wine labeling and advertising. While TTB approval is separate from trademark registration, certain TTB regulations intersect with trademark considerations:

  • Brand name approval: The TTB might reject a label if it includes misleading geographic claims or references.
  • Appellation of Origin: Using names like “Napa Valley” or “Sonoma Coast” requires adherence to specific TTB and state-level rules regarding the percentage of grapes sourced from those regions.
  • Misleading terms: Terms that falsely imply certain winemaking practices or locations can run afoul of both TTB rules and trademark law.

Key steps for registering a wine trademark

Conducting a comprehensive clearance search

Before filing an application with the USPTO, it is crucial to perform a trademark clearance search.

  • USPTO Database: Search the TESS (Trademark Electronic Search System) to check for identical or similar marks.
  • Common Law Databases: Not all trademarks are registered. Many wineries rely on common law rights, so also search corporate names, domain names, and wine competition listings.
  • International Databases: If you plan to export, consider searching the databases of the EUIPO (European Union Intellectual Property Office) and the WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization).

(Industry Stat: The USPTO receives tens of thousands of trademark applications per month across all industries. In the wine and spirits sector, the volume has been steadily increasing, reflecting the rise of boutique and craft producers.)

Classification and identifying goods/services

The USPTO uses International Classes under the Nice Classification System. Wine typically falls under:

  • Class 33: Alcoholic beverages (except beers).
  • Potential additional classes: If you provide wine club subscriptions (Class 35 for retail services) or tasting events (Class 41 for entertainment services), ensure they are included.

Precision in describing goods and services is crucial. An overly broad description might lead to either refusal or vulnerability to partial cancellation later, while an overly narrow description might limit brand expansion.

Filing the application

This step involves submitting a TEAS form via uspto.gov. Key elements of the application include:

  • Owner details: Whether you’re filing under an individual or corporate entity name.
  • Basis for filing: Use-based (Section 1(a)) if already in commerce, or intent-to-use (Section 1(b)) if you plan to commercialize soon.
  • Specimen (if applicable): If filing on a use basis, you must provide a label, packaging, or marketing materials showing how the mark is used in commerce.

Examination, publication, and opposition

  1. Initial review: A USPTO examining attorney checks for compliance with procedural and substantive requirements.
  2. Office actions: The examining attorney might issue an office action requesting clarifications, disclaimers, or refusals based on confusing similarity to an existing mark.
  3. Publication in the Official Gazette: Upon acceptance, the mark is published. Any party who believes they would be harmed by the registration has 30 days to file an opposition before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB).

Registration and maintenance

If unopposed (or if you win an opposition proceeding), the USPTO issues a Certificate of Registration. The trademark is initially valid for 10 years, with a Section 8 Declaration of continued use due between the 5th and 6th year, and subsequent renewals required every 10 years.

Common pitfalls in wine trademark filings

Geographic misdescriptions and AVA conflicts

Using a protected AVA name like “Napa Valley” or “Santa Barbara County” without meeting the TTB’s sourcing requirements can trigger:

  • Refusal by the USPTO: On grounds of deceptively misdescriptive or primarily geographically descriptive if you do not meet TTB criteria.
  • Challenges from regional associations: Groups like the Napa Valley Vintners or the Oregon Wine Board vigorously defend their geographic designations.

Likelihood of confusion with existing marks

A slight variation in spelling may not be enough to avoid confusing similarity.

  • Example: “Cascade Hills Winery” vs. “Cascade Hill Vineyards” could be considered too close in the eyes of the USPTO if both produce wine in overlapping markets.
  • Legal consequences: If your mark is deemed confusingly similar, it can lead to refusal during examination or, worse, an opposition proceeding by the existing mark owner.

Improper use of foreign terms

Wine producers sometimes use French, Italian, or Spanish terms to evoke Old World charm. However, terms that are generic or descriptive in a foreign language can face refusal under the doctrine of foreign equivalents.

  • Example: Using “Château” for a U.S. winery might raise descriptive issues unless the overall mark has distinctiveness.

Timing issues and lack of monitoring

  • Late filing: Launching a brand in multiple states before filing can allow competitors to preempt your rights.
  • No watch service: Failing to monitor the USPTO Gazette or other platforms means missing the chance to oppose similar wine marks within the TTAB’s strict deadlines.

Case studies, statistics, and a hypothetical client

Case study: Green Valley Vineyards

Green Valley Vineyards wanted to expand distribution throughout the U.S. While the owners had used “Green Valley” informally for years, they discovered mid-expansion that a California winery called “Greenvalley Estate” was already registered with the USPTO.

  • Result: A TTAB opposition forced Green Valley Vineyards to rebrand to “GV Vineyards” and revise all their labeling and marketing materials—a costly endeavor in the middle of national expansion.

U.S. wine trademark data

A 2025 USPTO annual report noted a 15% year-over-year increase in wine-related trademark applications, highlighting the explosive growth of both boutique wineries and private-label ventures in the U.S. market. This surge correlates with the rise in e-commerce wine sales and direct-to-consumer shipping laws liberalizing in several states.

Fictional client example: Autumn Harvest Wines

Autumn Harvest Wines, based in the Finger Lakes region of New York, decided to register a new brand for their Riesling line—“Autumn Mist.” Through a comprehensive clearance search, they discovered a potential conflict with an Oregon-based brewer that had “Autumn’s Mist Ale.” Their attorney advised minor changes in the label design and the goods description to reduce confusion.

  • Outcome: The brand launched smoothly under a slightly altered name, “Autumn Mist Riesling,” circumventing likely opposition from the brewer.

Practical tips for a successful wine trademark strategy

Consult an attorney or IP specialist

Wine law intersects with traditional trademark law, TTB regulations, AVA restrictions, and occasionally import-export rules. An experienced intellectual property attorney or specialized consultant can:

  • Conduct a thorough clearance search, including common law and international resources.
  • Advise on naming conventions, disclaimers, and label design to comply with TTB and USPTO requirements.
  • Manage the entire trademark application process, from filing through potential TTAB proceedings.

Plan for international expansion

Many U.S. wineries eventually reach beyond domestic markets. A federal trademark registration can serve as a basis for Madrid System applications, extending coverage into key wine-consuming nations like Canada, the UK, China, or Japan.

  • Avoid brand squatting: Certain countries see opportunistic registrations by third parties who anticipate the future arrival of an American brand, then demand high fees to release the name.
  • Consult local counsel: In addition to WIPO filings, each country may have local regulations, especially concerning geographical indications or local labeling laws.

Implement a trademark watch and enforcement program

  • USPTO Gazette monitoring: Subscribe to a watch service to track newly published marks in wine, spirits, or related categories.
  • Active enforcement: Sending cease-and-desist letters or filing oppositions at the TTAB can deter infringers and demonstrate your commitment to brand protection.
  • Periodic audits: Regularly review your own label usage, domain names, and expansions into new products (e.g., wine spritzers, wine-based cocktails) to update your trademark portfolio.

Conclusion

Trademark registration is more than just a legal formality—it is a cornerstone of your brand’s identity, reputation, and long-term market success. In an industry as storied and dynamic as wine, a strong trademark not only shields you from imitators but also fortifies your brand story in the minds of consumers.

By proactively registering and maintaining your trademark, you signal quality, distinction, and credibility. For producers whose goal is to stand out in the crowded aisles of local retail shops or in high-end restaurants nationwide, trademark protection is a non-negotiable step in building a legacy.

Why work with Dreyfus?

  • Recognized Expertise: Our team has over 20 years of experience in intellectual property and extensive knowledge of wine law.
  • Global Network: We assist clients with international filing strategies, ensuring worldwide protection for brands poised for export.
  • Customized Approach: We thoroughly analyze your situation to develop a specialized trademark strategy that fits your unique goals, whether you’re a boutique winery in Oregon or a large-scale producer in California.

The cabinet Dreyfus et Associés is in partnership with a worldwide network of lawyers specialized in Intellectual Property.

Do you need help securing your wine brand?

Contact us to develop a comprehensive plan and safeguard your wine label or winery name for years to come.

  • Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed of the latest legal developments in wine and intellectual property.
  • Download our practical guide on “10 Critical Mistakes to Avoid When Trademarking a Wine in the U.S.” (including case studies, expert tips, and a step-by-step checklist).

Useful External Links for Further Reading

Together, let’s protect and elevate your winemaking heritage.

Read More

Wine counterfeiting: how to respond to brand or appellation infringement

Wine counterfeiting is a growing concern in the U.S. and worldwide. Fraudsters may illegally use a producer’s trademark, replicate a label design, or falsely claim an American Viticultural Area (AVA) to profit from a winery’s hard-earned reputation. Whether you’re a boutique producer in Napa Valley or a large-scale winery in Washington State, safeguarding your brand identity is vital to maintaining consumer trust and financial stability.

This article explains how to detect and respond to wine counterfeiting or misuse of a brand or appellation in the United States, covering the legal frameworks, best practices to protect your winery’s image, and the scope of possible actions—both domestically and internationally.

Understanding Wine Counterfeiting in the U.S. Market

General Definition of Counterfeiting

In broad terms, counterfeiting involves the unauthorized reproduction or imitation of protected intellectual property (IP). Within the wine industry, this may include:

  • Unauthorized use of a registered trademark
    Example: A bottler selling lower-quality wine under a recognized name to capitalize on that brand’s reputation.
  • Label or packaging replication
    Fraudsters may closely imitate or replicate a legitimate producer’s labels, logos, or overall design to deceive consumers.
  • Improper AVA or regional claims
    Using a term like “Napa Valley” or “Willamette Valley” without meeting federal and state AVA requirements (e.g., TTB rules) constitutes a form of geographic misrepresentation.

Economic and Safety Ramifications

  • Brand damage: Substandard counterfeit wines can undermine a producer’s reputation for quality.
  • Financial losses: Industry groups, such as the Wine Institute, estimate that counterfeits and misleading labeling cost U.S. wine producers millions of dollars in lost revenue.
  • Health concerns: Some counterfeit wines contain unregulated or unsafe ingredients, putting consumers at risk.

International Context

American wines, especially those from prestigious AVAs like Napa Valley, Sonoma County, or the Willamette Valley, are in high demand globally. Counterfeiters may exploit brand recognition to sell imitation products in overseas markets. U.S. producers often need to secure trademark or brand protection abroad (e.g., via the Madrid System under the World Intellectual Property Organization, or direct filings in target export countries).

Types of Infringement: Brand, Appellation, and Mislabeling

Brand Infringement

When someone else uses your federally registered (or common law) trademark without permission, they may:

  • Directly copy your brand name or logo.
  • Adopt a confusingly similar name (e.g., changing one letter or adding a minor word) to trade on your brand’s goodwill.
  • Mimic your label design (colors, fonts, layout) to deceive consumers.

Appellation Misrepresentation

In the U.S., American Viticultural Areas (AVAs) are geographically defined wine-growing regions certified by the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB). Misrepresentation includes:

  • Using an AVA name improperly
    For instance, labeling a wine “Napa Valley” when less than 85% of the grapes are from Napa or if the wine doesn’t meet other TTB requirements.
  • Falsely suggesting a region
    Terms like “Champagne,” “Port,” or “Burgundy” have international naming regulations. In the U.S., some of these names may be grandfathered for older producers, but new labels generally must comply with truth-in-labeling rules.

Illicit Labeling Practices

Even if a producer isn’t directly stealing a brand name, they might violate TTB regulations by listing false or misleading descriptors on the label. Examples include:

  • Incorrect varietal or vintage claims
  • Bogus designations such as “reserve,” “estate,” or “old vine,” if those terms are not accurate or recognized.
  • Misleading references to sustainability, organic certification, or production methods.

Detecting Counterfeit Wines and Gathering Evidence

Red Flags

  • Unusually low prices for wines purportedly from a high-end region or producer.
  • Suspicious distribution channels—online auctions, gray-market retailers, or unknown importers.
  • Label inconsistencies—poor print quality, incorrect typographical details, missing mandatory warnings or TTB-required information.

Documenting the Infringement

Compiling evidence is essential before initiating legal action or a cease-and-desist letter:

  • Photographs or scans of the suspect label: capture the front and back labels, cork, capsule, and any serial markings.
  • Invoices or receipts to show the source and price of the counterfeit wine.
  • Lab analysis (if appropriate): Forensic testing may confirm that the liquid does not match the legitimate wine’s chemical profile.

Practical Tip: Retain physical samples of the alleged counterfeit bottles, ideally sealed and notarized or documented by a legal professional, to serve as proof during litigation or TTB review.

The Value of Ongoing Monitoring

  • Trademark watch services: Engage a specialized agency or use USPTO watch services to identify potentially infringing or confusingly similar marks.
  • Market checks: Periodically review online stores (domestic and international) and local retailers, especially in emerging markets where counterfeits are more common.

Legal Remedies and Enforcement Options

The Cease-and-Desist Letter

Often the first step, a cease-and-desist letter formally notifies the infringer that they must:

  1. Immediately stop using the brand, label, or appellation.
  2. Remove infringing products from the market.
  3. Destroy or surrender remaining inventory.
  4. Pay damages or seek a settlement for lost revenue and harm to reputation.

In some cases, if the violation is unintentional or minor, the infringer may comply to avoid legal escalation.

Litigation and Court Actions

If the infringer refuses to comply or the financial harm is substantial, a winery can pursue legal action:

  • Civil suit in federal court: This can yield damages (including treble damages for willful infringement), injunctive relief to stop further infringement, and potential recovery of attorneys’ fees.
  • Criminal prosecution: For egregious counterfeiting operations, law enforcement agencies (like the FBI or local authorities) might get involved if there is evidence of fraud, smuggling, or organized crime.

Example: Large-scale counterfeit rings selling imitation Napa Valley Cabernet abroad might face federal charges for violating trademark laws, wire fraud, or even money laundering statutes.

Role of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)

For import or export of counterfeit products, CBP can detain or seize shipments at U.S. ports of entry if a brand owner has recorded its trademark with the agency’s Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) e-Recordation system. This prevents counterfeit goods from entering (or leaving) the United States, saving brand owners from chasing infringers post-distribution.

Case Studies, Statistics, and a Hypothetical Example

Notable Case: Counterfeit “Napa” Wines in Asia

Groups like Napa Valley Vintners have periodically confronted counterfeiters producing “Napa” wines in China and other parts of Asia using imitation labels.

  • Approach: They collaborate with U.S. and foreign authorities, leveraging trademark registrations and local enforcement.
  • Result: Seized counterfeit stock, criminal fines for producers, and improved AVA recognition in key markets.

Stats on Economic Impact

A 2025 study cited by the Wine Institute (wineinstitute.org) estimated that global counterfeiting of American-made wines accounted for over $500 million in annual losses. High-profile AVAs, such as Napa Valley and Sonoma County, were the primary targets, but smaller regional producers have also been affected.

Hypothetical Example: “Sundown Cellars”

“Sundown Cellars,” a Washington-based winery, discovers an online retailer selling bottles labeled “Sundown Estates” with an almost identical logo and design.

  1. Evidence gathering: They purchase samples, photograph the counterfeit label, and retain invoices.
  2. Cease-and-desist: The winery sends a formal demand letter to the retailer and the purported importer.
  3. Litigation: The retailer refuses to comply. Sundown Cellars files a trademark infringement lawsuit in U.S. federal court.
  4. Outcome: The court issues an injunction, orders destruction of the infringing stock, and awards damages to Sundown Cellars.

Best Practices to Prevent Counterfeits and Protect Your Wine Brand

Proactively Register Your Brand

  • USPTO trademark registration: Filing with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is crucial for nationwide protection.
  • State registrations: May offer limited local coverage, but if you plan to sell across state lines, a federal mark is essential.
  • International coverage: For export markets, consider the Madrid Protocol or direct filings in strategic countries.

Enhance Label Security and Traceability

  • Advanced label features: Holograms, microtext, QR codes, or serialized capsules.
  • Batch and lot tracking: Use scannable barcodes or RFID technology to confirm authenticity.
  • Blockchain solutions: Some wineries are experimenting with blockchain to provide an immutable record of each bottle’s journey from grape to shelf.

Implement a Vigilant Monitoring Strategy

  • Online surveillance: Regularly check e-commerce platforms and auction sites for suspicious listings.
  • Collaboration with industry groups: Associations like Napa Valley Vintners, Sonoma County Vintners, Washington Wine Institute, etc., can share intelligence and coordinate legal actions.
  • Customs enforcement: Record trademarks with CBP to interdict counterfeit shipments at borders.

Conclusion and Call to Action

Wine counterfeiting is not just an economic threat; it poses a significant risk to your brand’s integrity. As more consumers discover and appreciate U.S. wines, counterfeiters grow increasingly sophisticated. Proactive legal registrations, robust label security features, and rigorous market monitoring form the backbone of an effective anti-counterfeiting strategy.

By securing federal and international trademarks, collaborating with enforcement agencies, and acting swiftly when a counterfeit is discovered, wineries can protect their hard-earned reputations and safeguard their revenue.

Why Work with Dreyfus?

  • Recognized Expertise: Our team has over 20 years of experience combating IP infringement, with a deep understanding of wine industry challenges.
  • Global Network: We collaborate with partners worldwide to address counterfeits and brand abuses in key wine markets.
  • Customized Approach: We develop tailored strategies that combine trademark registrations, monitoring solutions, and decisive legal actions.

The cabinet Dreyfus et Associés is in partnership with a worldwide network of lawyers specialized in Intellectual Property.

Dealing with wine counterfeiting or brand misuse?

  • Contact us for an immediate assessment of your case.
  • Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest legal developments in wine and intellectual property.
  • Download our guide, “7 Essential Steps to Combat Wine Counterfeiting,” featuring case studies and a comprehensive checklist.

Useful External Links

Protect your legacy and ensure that every bottle bearing your name meets the standards and authenticity your customers expect.

Read More

Birkenstock sandals: Evaluating their artistic merit for copyright protection

The question of whether Birkenstock sandals can be considered works of applied art and therefore eligible for copyright protection is a central topic in intellectual property law. Copyright protects works that exhibit originality and creativity. However, not all objects or designs qualify for this form of protection. This article analyzes whether Birkenstock sandals meet the necessary criteria for such protection, drawing on the principles of intellectual property law and recent legal precedents.

  Judicial Findings on Birkenstock sandals’ artistic merit

·      The German Federal Supreme Court’s ruling

In a decision number I ZR 16/24 dated February 20, 2025, the German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) ruled that Birkenstock’s sandal designs do not meet the necessary criteria to be considered works of applied art protected by copyright. The Court clarified that, to benefit from copyright, the product must demonstrate a certain level of creativity and personal choice. Birkenstock sandals, primarily designed for functionality and comfort, were deemed insufficiently creative to meet this criterion.

 Distinction between art and design

The Court also clarified the distinction between artistic works and functional designs. Artistic works are created primarily for their aesthetic value, while functional designs, like Birkenstock sandals, are intended for practical use. The minimalist design of Birkenstock sandals, emphasizing ergonomic support, was seen as serving practical goals rather than artistic expression

Originality and eligibility for copyright protection

Criteria for originality

Originality is a fundamental requirement for copyright protection. A work must be the personal creation of its author, reflecting creative and free choices. In the case of Birkenstock sandals, while their design may be considered distinctive due to its ergonomic benefits, it lacks the artistic originality needed to qualify as a work eligible for copyright protection.

 Implications for intellectual property protection

The absence of copyright protection does not mean that Birkenstock’s designs go unprotected. The company can still seek protection through other forms of intellectual property, such as design patents or trademarks, which safeguard the visual appearance of products and their brand identity. However, these protections focus more on the design’s utility or branding rather than the artistic expression of the product.

The design of Birkenstock sandals

 Functional design vs artistic expression

Birkenstock sandals are famous for their functional design, which prioritizes comfort and practicality. Features such as arch support and adjustable straps contribute to their popularity. However, these functional elements do not seem to meet the threshold of artistic creativity required for copyright protection. The minimalist design, although distinctive, is more focused on functionality than on aesthetic creativity.

 Minimal artistic expression

The design of Birkenstock sandals, consisting primarily of a simple sole and straps, is not characterized by a strong artistic expression. The aesthetic, while iconic, prioritizes ergonomics and comfort, which are more functional than artistic in nature.

 Comparison with other artistic designs

Compared to other footwear designs that emphasize ornamental aesthetics (such as high-fashion shoes), Birkenstock sandals appear less creative in terms of artistic expression. Their minimalist design, while practical and well-regarded, does not reflect the level of creativity typically required for applied art works protected by copyright.

  Conclusion

In conclusion, Birkenstock sandals do not meet the criteria necessary to benefit from copyright protection. While they are unique and widely recognized for their comfort and functionality, their design is more functional than creative. Therefore, these sandals would likely not be considered artistic works and protected by copyright under current intellectual property standards. This analysis highlights the importance of understanding the distinctions between different forms of intellectual property protection and the specific criteria for each form of protection.

Dreyfus Law Firm works closely with its clients to evaluate whether their designs and trademarks are eligible for protection under intellectual property law. We provide the necessary expertise to help you navigate these complexities and protect your rights.

The Dreyfus Law Firm is partnered with a global network of intellectual property lawyers.

Join us on social media !

LinkedIn  

Instagram

FAQ

Read More