"ALCOHOL-FREE GIN" or "LIQUEUR WITHOUT EGG" – are manufacturers permitted to use these designations?

What manufacturers are actually allowed to do – two recent decisions on "Liqueur Without Egg" and "alcohol-free gin" fit together perfectly.

The market for alcohol-free and vegan alternative products is developing rapidly. Many manufacturers want to align their innovative beverages linguistically with well-known spirits in order to provide consumers with orientation. Terms such as "alcohol-free gin", "gin alternative", "vegan egg liqueur" or "liqueur without egg" are therefore particularly popular in product communication. However, especially in the spirits sector, the requirements of Regulation (EU) 2019/787 are strict – and violations entail considerable competition law risks.

In this context, two recent decisions deserve particular attention:

• theLG Kiel, Urteil vom 28.10.2025 – 15 O 28/24, on the permissibility of the designation "Liqueur Without Egg",on which we have already reported in detail, and
  the newEuGH-Urteil vom 13.11.2025 – C-563/24 on the term "alcohol-free gin".
• Although the outcomes appear prima facie different, they are systematically complementary. Both courts apply the same EU law provisions – but arrive at different, yet consistent, results based on different factual circumstances.

Legal position: strict protection for defined spirits designations

Regulation (EU) 2019/787 protects certain categories of spirits – such as "gin", "whisky", "rum" or "egg liqueur" – particularly intensively. The terms are legally defined; they may be used exclusively for products that meet all manufacturing and quality requirements of the respective category.

The basic principles are:

• Protected designation used?
  → Then Article 10(7) of Regulation 2019/787 applies; use is prohibited if the product does not meet the category.
• Reference or combination used?
  → Also impermissible if the impression arises that the product belongs to the category in question.
• Neutral generic terms used?
  → Permissible, provided no protected designation or risk of confusion arises.

In the case of LG Kiel, this very distinction played a central role.

The case "Liqueur Without Egg" – LG Kiel, 28.10.2025 – 15 O 28/24

As we have already reported, the LG Kiel assessed the designation "Liqueur Without Egg" as permissible. Although the term "egg liqueur" is a protected spirits category, the defendant did not use this term; rather, it spoke of a "liqueur" – an unprotected generic term – and merely added the descriptive statement "without egg".not, but referred to a "liqueur" – an unprotected generic term – and merely added the descriptive statement "without egg".

The court correctly established that this does not constitute a use of or reference to the protected designation "egg liqueur". Rather, the manufacturer deliberately distinguishes the vegan product from the classic egg liqueur. Misleading the consumer is thus excluded, as "without egg" represents a clear distancing.

In other words:
The protected designation is not used – therefore the designation is permissible.

The case "alcohol-free gin" – EuGH, 13.11.2025 – C-563/24

The starting point in the proceedings referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union (EuGH) by the Landgericht Potsdam on the designation "alcohol-free gin" was quite different. A manufacturer had marketed a water-based beverage with juniper aromas under designations such as "Virgin Gin Alcohol-Free" and "alcohol-free gin". The Association for Fair Competition sued – and the Landgericht Potsdam referred the question to the EuGH as to whether this was permissible.

The EuGH decided unequivocally:
The designation "alcohol-free gin" is impermissible because the protected term "gin" is used directly.

An "alcohol-free gin" as an alcohol-free beverage cannot meet the statutory requirements of the "gin" category. The minimum alcohol content (37.5% vol.) and the prescribed manufacturing process by means of flavouring ethyl alcohol are mandatory. A beverage without alcohol can never fall under this category, even from a conceptual standpoint.

The addition "alcohol-free" does not help. Although it prevents misunderstandings regarding alcohol content, it does not prevent misunderstandings about other characteristics, particularly regarding the manufacturing method. The EuGH emphasizes explicitly that the regulation is intended to protect the reputation of traditional spirits and to ensure a high level of consumer protection. If additions such as "alcohol-free" were permitted, the protection system could easily be circumvented.

Thus the core of the decision is:

A beverage that is not gin may not be designated as gin – neither directly nor with clarifying additions.

Why the decisions are not contradictory

At first glance, one might ask why the LG Kiel permits a scope for manoeuvre while the EuGH is strict. The answer lies in the subject matter of protection itself:

• In the EuGH case, the protected designation "gin" is used directly.
  The term alone already triggers the prohibition on use.
• In the LG Kiel case, the protected designation "egg liqueur" is not used at all.
  The defendant spoke only of "liqueur" – the protected category is not touched.

The system of the regulation is thus fully consistent:

• Whoever uses the protected term must meet the category.
• Whoever uses descriptive generic terms may clarify characteristics – as long as no reference is created.

In this way, consumer protection is ensured without unnecessarily blocking modern alternative products.

Practical consequences for manufacturers and retailers

For all providers of alcohol-free or vegan alternatives, clear rules of action emerge:

• Protected designations may not be used if the product does not meet the category.
  Particularly prohibited are:
  "alcohol-free gin", "gin alternative", "gin-style", "gin-flavour".
• Descriptive, neutral particulars are permissible, for example:
  "alcohol-free juniper beverage", "botanical drink", "liqueur without egg".
• Labels, online shops, social media and advertising texts should definitely be reviewedbefore products come onto the market.

Competition associations are extremely active in the field of spirits advertising; cease-and-desist letters and lawsuits are realistic risks.

Conclusion and recommendation: Communicate with legal certainty now – we will help you do so

Both decisions demonstrate: The boundaries of permissible product communication in the spirits sector are sharply drawn – but comprehensible. Manufacturers of innovative alternatives must choose their terms carefully in order not to fall into the trap of a violation of VO (EU) 2019/787.

We are pleased to support you with:

• legally compliant product naming,
• the design of labels and advertising materials,
• the review of existing brands and designations,
• or the defence against competition law attacks.

Contact the experienced solicitors and solicitors at AVANTCORE Rechtsanwälte in Stuttgart before you market your product under a new name or new slogans. Our expertise protects your product – and you from costly disputes.