Vegan liqueur may be advertised – Regional Court (LG) Kiel improves the position of "liqueur without egg"

Vegan liqueur may also be designated in advertising as "liqueur without egg" – no impermissible allusion in the case of a vegan alternative

1. The tension: between consumer protection and advertising freedom

In competition law, the question ofhow far product advertising may gowhen it refers to protected or traditionally established designations is one of the perennial issues. The tension is particularly evident inspirits law, whereRegulation (EU) No 2019/787 contains clear requirements: protected terms such as "egg liqueur", "whisky" or "rum" may only be used for products that meet thestatutorily defined manufacturing requirements.

UnderArt. 10 para. 7 Reg. (EU) 2019/787, both direct use and certainallusions are prohibited in order toavoid misleading statements andprotect the reputation of traditional spirits.

But how far does this prohibition reach when manufacturersdeliberately offer vegan alternatives that refer to well-known categories? TheRegional Court (LG) Kiel has ruled on this matter injudgment of 28 October 2025 (Az. 15 O 28/24) – a practice-oriented and remarkably balanced decision – in favour of open market communication and against an overextension of the prohibition on use.

2. What it was all about: vegan liqueur meets traditional terms

A competition association, registered under § 8b UWG, sued a spirits company that, in addition to classic products, also distributes avegan "liqueur without egg". The product was advertised via various online channels with, among other things, the following statements:

• "liqueur without egg"
• "alternative to egg liqueur"
• "vegan liqueur without eggs, which tastes like egg liqueur"
• "vegan egg liqueur"

The association saw violations of thedesignation and allusion prohibition of Art. 10 para. 7 Reg. (EU) 2019/787. The protected term "egg liqueur" should not – even when combined with terms such as "alternative" or "without" – be used for products such as vegan liqueur that do not meet the requirements of the regulation (140 g egg yolk per litre, inter alia).

The defendant argued, on the other hand, that its advertising served precisely tomake a clear distinction: the consumer should recognise that the product as a vegan liqueurcontains no eggs and is aimed at vegans or allergy sufferers. Furthermore, a declaration of intent to cease using misleading designations ("egg liqueur without eggs") had already been issued.

3. The decision: no misleading – claim largely dismissed

The Regional Court (LG) Kielgranted the claim only in part. Only acontractual penalty of €5,000 for breach of a previous declaration of intent to cease was awarded. For the rest, the court dismissed the applications for injunctive relief.

a) "liqueur without egg" is permissible

The designation of vegan liqueurs as "liqueur without egg" does not constitutean impermissible use of the protected designation "egg liqueur".
It is neither a "legally prescribed designation" within the meaning of the regulation nor is there animpermissible allusion.

Theaverage informed, attentive and discerning consumer recognise that 'liqueur without egg' is not an egg liqueur at all but, as a vegan liqueur, constitutes an independent vegan product.

The formulation aimed at distinction, not imitation – it did not seek to deceive the consumer, but rather to offer him a flavour-similar but different alternative.

b) No impermissible 'evocation' within the meaning of Art. 3(3) of Regulation (EU) 2019/787

An evocation exists, according to the definition in the Regulation, only if the consumer establishes a direct mental link to a protected designation which suggests essential equivalence.

The Regional Court (LG) Kiel denied this. Although the consumer recognises the link, it becomes clear that this is not egg liqueur but a substitute product. Thus the case differs from the well-known Court of Justice of the European Union (EuGH) decision 'Glen Buchenbach' (C-44/17), where the term 'Glen' deliberately exploited the reputation of 'Scotch Whisky'.

c) Purpose of protection: consumer protection, not market protection

The court emphasised that the purpose of Regulation (EU) 2019/787 is not in the protection of traditional producers, but in the protection of consumers against misleading information.
A merely mental link or a comparable taste profile is therefore not sufficient to establish misleading information.

The decision thereby distinguishes itself from overly strict interpretations which – such as the Regional Court (LG) Potsdam in its preliminary ruling on 'alcohol-free gin' – have sought to understand the evocation prohibition as an almost absolute market barrier instrument.

d) 'Alternative to egg liqueur' and 'vegan liqueur without egg, which tastes like egg liqueur' – likewise unobjectionable

These statements were likewise not misleading. The consumer clearly recognises that this is an alternative, not the classic egg liqueur itself. No legally impermissible use of the protected designation is to be found therein.

e) Contractual penalty for continued breaches

The court made an exception where the defendant despite a declaration of discontinuance continued to use the designations 'egg liqueur without egg' and 'vegan egg liqueur' on its website and with third-party retailers.

Here it had breached its obligation to take reasonable measures to remove the prohibited terms. The contractual penalty of EUR 5,000 was reasonable taking into account the defendant's market size.

4. Assessment: A bold but convincing judgment

The judgment of the Regional Court (LG) Kiel is convincing through its practice-oriented, consumer-focused interpretation of the Union law provisions. It makes clear that the protection of traditional spirits designations must not lead to the blockade of modern, vegan product concepts such as vegan liqueurs.

The approach of taking the consumer as the benchmark and not overvaluing formal word similarities corresponds to the purpose and effect of European competition law: transparency and innovation, not market insulation.

At the same time it must be noted: this is a decision of a Regional Court, thus not a ruling by a court of last instance.

Other courts – in particular in light of the pending preliminary ruling procedure of the Regional Court (LG) Potsdam before the Court of Justice of the European Union (EuGH) – could in future judge the question of 'evocation' more strictly{ "

5. 0

• "
  :
• 
  "
• .
  Ho
• w
  eve

6. r

, the
Regi

o
nal

C

ourt (

LG)