“PETRUS” Opposition: The Reputation of a Prestigious Wine Brand Blocks “PETRUSCO Caviar”

In a decision dated 2 February 2026¹, the EUIPO Opposition Division upheld an opposition filed by Petrus against an EU trademark application for the figurative sign “PETRUSCO Caviar”, covering a wide range of premium food products in Class 29, mainly seafood and caviar. The application was rejected pursuant to Article 8(5) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation (EUTMR), which provides enhanced protection for trademarks enjoying a reputation.

‍

1. An Opposition Based on the Extended Protection of Reputed Marks (Article 8(5) EUTMR)

The opposition was based on the earlier international trademark PETRUS, designating the European Union, well known for wines in Class 33.

Article 8(5) EUTMR allows refusal of a later mark even where the goods or services are not identical or similar, provided that three cumulative conditions are met:

• similarity between the signs,
• reputation of the earlier mark,
• risk of unfair advantage or detriment.

This provision aims to prevent third parties from free-riding on the prestige of iconic brands.

‍

2. The EUIPO Confirms the Exceptional Reputation of “PETRUS”

The Opposition Division held that PETRUS enjoys an outstanding reputation across the EU, particularly in France, prior to the filing date of the contested mark (5 August 2024).

The evidence included:

• French court decisions recognising PETRUS as a reputed mark,
• earlier EUIPO rulings confirming its fame,
• an OpinionWay survey showing 77% assisted awareness,
• extensive press coverage describing PETRUS as mythical and legendary,
• worldwide distribution evidence,
• presence in Michelin-starred restaurants.

The EUIPO emphasised that rarity and prestige outweigh limited production volumes.

‍

3. A Sufficient Degree of Similarity Between “PETRUS” and “PETRUSCO”

Although visually complex, the dominant element of the contested mark was found to be PETRUSCO, reproducing entirely the earlier mark at its beginning.

• visually: similarity below average,
• phonetically: high similarity,
• conceptually: “CO” may evoke “company” but is weakly distinctive.

Consumers generally focus on the beginning of a sign, reinforcing similarity.

‍

4. The Existence of a “Link” Between Luxury Wines and Gourmet Food Products

Even though PETRUS is registered for wines, the EUIPO considered that consumers would establish a mental association with premium gourmet products such as caviar or seafood.

The Office highlighted:

• proximity within the luxury agri-food sector,
• overlapping distribution channels,
• food-and-wine pairing practices,
• risk of perceived commercial connection.

Consumers may believe in a licensing or partnership arrangement.

‍

5. A Clear Risk of Unfair Advantage (Free-Riding)

The EUIPO primarily found a risk of unfair advantage, meaning that “PETRUSCO” would benefit from the prestige and attractive power of PETRUS.

Such use would allow the applicant to:

• transfer PETRUS’s luxury aura,
• exploit decades of investment,
• avoid the costs of launching an independent brand.

This constitutes free-riding within the meaning of Article 8(5) EUTMR.

‍

Conclusion

This decision is a strong reminder of the broad protection granted to reputed trademarks in the European Union.

Any attempt to appropriate the prestige of an iconic luxury brand in adjacent markets, particularly gourmet sectors, may be sanctioned as unfair advantage.