“This is not Gin”, is it?

LG Hamburg: no puns for spirits

Manufacturers of alcohol-free alternatives to gin, rum or whiskey often use prominent original terms in their marketing and use negations or explanatory additions such as “This is not gin” or “Alcohol-free rum drink”.

This gave rise to a complaint by a trade association, which saw this as an infringement of the Spirits Regulation(Regulation (EU) 2019/787). In the underlying case, the products were based on dealcoholised essences of the respective spirits, but only contained a maximum of 0.5% alcohol.

In its judgement of 24 July 2025 – 416 HKO 51/23, the Hamburg Regional Court ruled in favour of the association: The chamber relied on Art. 10 para. 7 of the Spirits Ordinance, according to which there is absolute protection of labelling. The association was therefore entitled to issue a warning to the manufacturer and to assert its claim for injunctive relief in court.

Protected designations such as “rum”, “gin” and “whiskey” may not be used for labelling, presentation or advertising if the products do not meet the minimum alcohol content (e.g. 37.5% for gin) and other requirements. If this does occur, it constitutes an anti-competitive and unfair act by breach of law within the meaning of Section 3a UWG. This applies even if additions such as “not” are used, as the protected term is still used.

The exception provision of Art. 12 of the Spirits Ordinance, which regulates a permissible exception for allusions, was also not applied. Allusions are permitted, for example, if the alcohol used comes exclusively from the spirits to which reference is made – which, however, is unlikely to be the case in practice with non-alcoholic alternative products.

The decision is in line with case law (see OLG Karlsruhe judgement of 5 November 2024 – 14 U 192/23) and commentary on the Spirits Regulation. This aims to ensure product truthfulness and consumer protection through strict “absolute protection” of certain designations. An allusion – i.e. the mental association through presentation, imagery or choice of term – is already to be omitted if it is likely to create a reference to the protected category for the average consumer. This applies regardless of whether the consumer is actually deceived. It is therefore sufficient for the word “gin”, “rum” or “whiskey” to be used, even if “alcohol-free”, “alternative” or “not” is added. The Hildesheim Regional Court (judgement of 6 June 2025 – 11 O 4/24) also dealt with the term “alcohol-free gin” and classified it as misleading and inadmissible. The reasons given included the requirements for the production process of conventional gin, which serve to protect the reputation and standing of gin and the legitimate producers on the one hand and to prevent consumers from being misled about the type of product they are buying on the other. According to Hildesheim District Court, third parties have no legitimate interest in the use of an unauthorised designation.

EU Parliament: impending restrictions for vegan alternative products

Anyone who disregards labelling bans under EU law exposes themselves to claims for injunctive relief under competition law, at least according to Hamburg Regional Court. With this in mind, it is worth taking a quick look at the bigger picture: the European Parliament recently adopted a majority position on the labelling of “meat alternatives” (plant-based products) – with far-reaching implications for marketing and compliance. The parliamentary resolution calls for traditional “meat-related” names such as “burger”, “sausage” or “steak” to be banned for plant-based alternatives, so that in future only products that are actually animal-based should bear these names.

In its thrust, the draft law follows the protection of “protected” categories – similar to the absolute protection in the Spirits Ordinance. While the absolute use of terms for non-alcoholic alternatives is already prohibited in Hamburg today, a similarly restrictive terminology could be created across the EU for “meat alternatives”, which would prohibit the use of known “meat-related” product names, even if clarifying terms (“vegan”, “plant-based”) are added.

Consumer protection or mere market regulation?

The judgement by Hamburg Regional Court on the use of protected spirits names for non-alcoholic alternatives and the European Parliament’s current position on meat substitutes shed light on a key fundamental issue of regulatory development in Europe. It is questionable whether this is really still about sustainable consumer protection – or whether it is increasingly just a matter of market regulation that protects established product categories and economic interests.

In particular, it is doubtful whether the labelling of alternative products with clarifying additives such as “plant-based” or “alcohol-free” is at all suitable for deceiving consumers. Innovative companies are currently coming under increasing pressure without any demonstrable harm to consumers – simply because the terminology competes with traditional categories. As a result, the scope for innovation for “alternative” concepts threatens to shrink continuously.

The Hamburg Regional Court’s decision once again illustrates how strictly the requirements of the EU Spirits Regulation and unfair competition law are applied – and what risks lurk on the path to innovative product marketing.