Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:1998:445
Date: 1998-09-29
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Wine
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

Summary of the Judgment 
Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Wine — Description and presentation of 
wines — Sparkling wines — Use of brand names to supplement compulsory information — Limits 
— Prohibition on using brand names liable to be confused with the description of another wine 
— Scope — Criteria for assessing the risk of confusion 
(Council Regulation No 2333/92, Art. 13(2)(b)) 
I-513 
SUMMARY — CASE C-303/97 
Article 13(2)(b) of Regulation N o 2333/92 
laying down general rules for the description 
and presentation of sparkling wines and aer­
ated sparkling 'wines is to be interpreted as 
meaning that, for the purposes of applying 
the prohibition laid down therein against using 
brand names liable to be confused with the 
description of another wine, it is not suffi­
cient to determine that a brand name which 
contains a word appearing in the description 
of one of the products mentioned in that pro­
vision is, in itself, likely to be confused with 
that description. 
By authorising in principle the use of brand 
names to supplement the description, presen­
tation and advertising of sparkling wines, the 
Community legislature intended to strike a 
balance between the interests involved, that is 
to say, between the right of consumers not to 
be misled as to the intrinsic qualities of a 
product, and the legitimate interest of the 
owners of a brand name to use and exploit it 
for commercial purposes. That balance would 
be seriously undermined if a mere risk of 
confusion, found to exist without even taking 
the opinions and habits of the consumers 
concerned into consideration, were enough to 
prevent the use of an appellation protected as 
a brand name. 
For that prohibition to apply, it is also neces­
sary to establish that use of the brand name 
is in fact likely to mislead the consumers con­
cerned and thus affect their economic behav­
iour. It is for the national court to take into 
account the presumed expectations in response 
to that information on the part of an average 
consumer who is reasonably well informed 
and reasonably observant and circumspect. 
I - 5 1 4