A vegan liqueur that “tastes like egg liqueur” may be advertised as an “egg-free liqueur” – as long as the consumer is made aware that it is not an “egg liqueur” as defined by the EU spirits categories. This was decided by the Regional Court of Kiel in a judgement dated 28 October 2025 (case no. 15 O 28/24).
Background
The proceedings concerned a manufacturer that sells a vegan variant, based on soya with rum, in addition to classic eggnog and advertises it as “liqueur without egg” and “alternative to eggnog”, among other things. An association saw this as an infringement of Regulation (EU) 2019/787 on the protection of traditional spirit drink designations. The plaintiff association initially demanded far-reaching injunctions – including against statements such as “liqueur without egg” and “alternative to eggnog”. The defendant then issued cease-and-desist declarations with penalty notices in relation to “egg liqueur” and “egg liqueur without eggs”, but maintained the admissibility of “liqueur without egg”.
The decision of the Regional Court of Kiel
The Regional Court of Kiel expressly denied an inadmissible “allusion” within the meaning of Art. 3 para. 3 of the Spirits Regulation to the protected designation “egg liqueur” if a product is advertised as “liqueur without egg” and “vegan”. According to the court, the average, reasonably attentive consumer recognises a clear distinction from the protected spirits category “egg liqueur” in the wording “without egg”. Such a differentiation is legally permissible because it does not give the impression that it is an egg liqueur whose main ingredient is egg (egg yolk and egg white), but rather an alternative.
In its judgement, the court uses specific examples from the advertisement at issue (“vegan liqueur without egg that tastes like eggnog”). The overall impression is decisive, in particular the multiple visible labelling “vegan” and the clearly differentiating statement “without egg”. This only creates a legally permissible association with the flavour (“tastes like eggnog”) in the consumer’s mind, without suggesting an essential similarity or identity with the protected category. As a result, there was no inadmissible conceptual approximation. The Regional Court of Kiel stated:
As stated, the regulation is not intended to protect producers of traditional spirits from competition from such alternatives, but merely to protect consumers from being misled with regard to these products. This is also clear from the fact that Article 10 (7) sentence 2 of the Regulation only mentions “kind”, “type”, “à la”, “style”, “brand” and “flavour” as examples of inadmissible connecting words, i.e. terms that attempt to establish a similarity or even identity with the protected spirit drink, but not opposing terms such as “alternative to” or “substitute for”.
Comparison: Strict approach to spirits designations
Absolute protection under the EU Spirits Regulation applies as soon as the protected designation appears as such in labelling, presentation or advertising – qualifying additions (“not”, “kind”, “type”) do not help.
The decision of the Regional Court of Kiel does not oppose this principle, but shows its limits and the permissible alternative: a differentiation that does not use the protected term (“eggnog”), but combines an independent generic term (“liqueur”) with a negative clarification (“without egg”), can be permissible. The legal difference lies in whether the product communication uses the protected name itself and thus affects the absolute scope of protection (as in the “gin” case), or whether it uses a different, non-protected term and explicitly creates distance.
With regard to the system of the Spirits Regulation, it is crucial that the absolute protection of certain designations serves the purpose of product truth and consumer protection; it prevents a product from being wrongly assigned to a protected category. The Kiel decision confirms this objective without prohibiting the factual reference to flavour (without designating the protected name). It is thus in line with a differentiated application – strict if the protected term itself is used; open if the communication is recognisably differentiating and does not mislead the consumer.
Conclusion
In contrast to decisions concerning the specific use of protected designations, the Regional Court of Kiel rightly recognises here that the aim of the Spirits Regulation is to protect consumers from being misled and not to protect producers of traditional spirits from competition from new types of spirits. This is because the reputation of traditional spirits production is not impaired by the fact that alternatives are entering the market. After all, there is demand on the market for modern alternatives to traditional drinks, for example in vegan or non-alcoholic form.