EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

The EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) is the European Union regulatory body responsible for managing EU trademark and design rights, as well as handling intellectual property disputes across the member states. In the beverage industry, the EUIPO plays a critical role in determining trade dress similarity between alcoholic (Class 33) and non-alcoholic (Class 32) beverages.

The EUIPO’s jurisprudence has become highly relevant to global beverage companies due to the convergence of alcoholic and non-alcoholic portfolios under a multi-beverage-strategy. As the line between distinct product categories continues to blur, navigating EU trademark law when launching 0.0% extensions has become increasingly complex. This shifting regulatory landscape significantly complicates trade-dress-differentiation for brands and increases scrutiny surrounding alibi-marketing.

Volatile Jurisprudence on Beverage Similarity

The legal assessment of whether NoLo (no- and low-alcohol) beverages and traditional alcoholic beverages are considered “similar” has undergone a volatile shift within the EUIPO, heavily impacting brand extension strategies:

• The FLÜGEL and ICEBERG Era (2018–2019): Historically, the EUIPO treated alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages as distinctly dissimilar. In 2018, the General Court’s FLÜGEL judgment declared these categories to be fundamentally dissimilar, prompting the EUIPO to adapt its guidelines. This stance was reinforced by the Grand Board’s 2019 ICEBERG decision, which explicitly held vodka to be dissimilar to mineral water and non-alcoholic fruit beverages.
• The Reversal to Similarity (2022–2025): Recent jurisprudence has pivoted back to recognizing that specific non-alcoholic variants (like 0.0% beers) share overlapping consumption contexts and distribution channels with their alcoholic counterparts. In the Zoraya decision (2022), the Grand Board recognized that non-alcoholic beverages are “at least slightly similar” to wines and spirits. In January 2025, the EUIPO’s Fifth Board of Appeal (KINGSMAN appeal) found that alcohol-free beers possess a low-to-average degree of similarity to traditional alcoholic beverages because they target the same end users.
• Conceptual Dissimilarity Exception: Despite the general shift toward finding a “low degree of similarity” between the classes, likelihood of confusion can still be mitigated by strong conceptual differences. In the 2024 LEMOON vs. LENNON case, the General Court found no likelihood of confusion between the two marks—despite low visual and phonetic similarity—because the exceptional notoriety of John Lennon neutralized the similarities.