Keep up-to-date with the latest IP insights and updates as well as upcoming webinars and seminars via HLK’s LinkedIn page, or simply subscribe to our updates.
In this article, Roland Weede explores a recent ECJ decision on the marketing of alcohol-free spirit alternatives, and its implications for the use of protected spirit names such as “gin” under EU law.
Get in touch
Drinking alcohol is decidedly on the decline in Europe, and even though the ambitious 10% target reduction over the 2010 figures, which was encouraged by WHO as part of the European Framework for Action on Alcohol, was not met (and by a lot) the long-term trend is clear: compared to the 1980s, European alcohol consumption has dropped by almost a quarter.
It’s therefore no wonder that alcohol-free alternatives to popular alcoholic drinks are becoming increasingly popular and evermore sophisticated. Alcohol alternatives are not new for already low ABV drinks such as beer, cider or even sparkling wine and have been on the market for decades. In the case of spirits, however, where the alcohol content is sometimes over half of the overall product, it’s only recently that manufacturers have come up with innovative alternative drinks that are getting closer and closer to the original drink, especially for sprits with a distinctive flavour, such as whisky or gin.
Adapting to these changes in the low-and-no alcohol market, a recent ECJ decision has made the marketing of these alcohol free alternative drinks considerably more difficult.
A case for “alcohol-free” gin?
It is no secret that EU internal market regulations are highly protective of the designation of specific foods or drinks under certain names. Not every cheese can be called Manchego, and not every beer can be called Munich beer. But what if a “gin” does not contain a single drop of alcohol? Can it still be called gin? Is it even gin at all?
According to the German consumer protection alliance VSW (Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb) that has sued “PB VI Goods before the Potsdam regional court, which referred the case to the ECJ”, for using the word gin in relation to its alcohol free product “Virgin Gin alkholfrei” (“Virgin Gin alcohol free”).
In its decision of 13 November 2025 (case no. C-563/24), the ECJ agreed with VSW that use of the word “gin” to refer to a non-alcoholic drink, is not permitted under EU law. The relevant legalisation applicable is regulation (EU) 2019/787 of 17 April 2019 (the Spirits Regulation), which contains definitions for most spirits produced in the EU. It also contains a prohibition to the use of these protected terms for any beverage that does not comply with their definition. At Annex 1 of the regulation, the definition of “gin” contains the clear requirement that “the minimum alcoholic strength by volume of gin shall be 37,5%”.
The Spirits Regulation provides for some exceptions to the strict prohibition, notably for mixed drinks, as well as foodstuffs other than beverages, but when it comes to the drink itself, the wording is clear: no alcohol, no “gin”.
The second question raised before the ECJ was whether a general prohibition such as this one conforms to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, protecting the freedom to conduct business.
In this instance, the ECJ saw no factors that would affect the validity of the regulation in light of the freedom to conduct a business: the objective of the regulation (i.e. the protection of consumers’ expectations associated with certain product names) was deemed reasonable for the purpose of Internal Market regulation, and the means employed were not considered disproportionate, as the actual business activity (being the production and sale of the beverage in question) had not in itself been prohibited; the prohibition was only related to the branding. The Court also dismissed the argument that the phrase “non-alcoholic” would prevent false expectations about the product, by pointing out that it was still unclear which features of a “gin” consumers could expect from the product.
With the inflexible wording of the Spirits Regulation not leaving much room for the Court to decide otherwise, the result presents manufacturers of non-alcoholic alternatives to spirits with an almost impossible challenge: since the regulation also prohibits the use of protected names in the description of any beverage that does not fit the definition set out in the Annex to the Spirits Regulation, they will now have to play a game of charades with consumers and describe their products without directly mentioning the alcoholic beverage whose taste they are trying to emulate.
One thing is clear, though: this decision will not help promote the WHO-set target to reduce alcohol consumption by 10%.
Need assistance?
This is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Should you require advice on this or any other topic then please contact hlk@hlk-ip.com or your usual HLK advisor.