The EU Court of Justice bans ‘gin-sounding’ on non-alcoholic beverages

The Court of Justice of the European Union – with its judgement of 13 November 2025 in case C-563/24 – has definitively clarified the illegality of ‘gin sounding‘. That is, the use of the designation ‘gin’ for the marketing of non-alcoholic beverages that are nevertheless inspired by such drinks.

The ruling originates from an injunction action brought by Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb eV – a German association with the specific objective of combating unfair competition – against the company PB Vi Goods GmbH, which marketed a non-alcoholic beverage called ‘Virgin Gin Alkoholfrei’.

The referring court, the Landgericht Potsdam, had submitted two preliminary questions to the Court: one of an interpretative nature, concerning Article 10(7) and Article 12(1) of the Spirits Regulation (EU) 2019/787, and one regarding the compatibility of this provision with the principle of freedom to conduct a business enshrined in Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The regulatory framework

Regulation (EU) 2019/787, known as the Spirits Regulation, uniformly governs the definition, designation, presentation and labelling of spirit drinks in the European Union. The ratio of the legislation, as evident from recitals 2, 3 and 10, pursues multiple general interest objectives: guaranteeing a high level of consumer protection, eliminating information asymmetry, preventing misleading commercial practices, ensuring market transparency and fair competition conditions, whilst simultaneously safeguarding the reputation of European spirit drinks.

Article 10(7) of the regulation establishes the prohibition on using the legal designations of spirit drinks for any beverage that does not meet the requirements of the relevant category defined in Annex I. The prohibition also applies when the legal designations are accompanied by expressions such as ‘kind‘, ‘type‘, ‘style‘, ‘flavour‘ or similar terms.

With regard specifically to gin, Annex I, point 20, of the regulation sets out mandatory requirements: the beverage must be obtained by flavouring ethyl alcohol of agricultural origin with juniper berries (Juniperus communis L.) and must have a minimum alcoholic strength by volume of 37.5%.

‘Gin sounding’, the absolute prohibition

In resolving the interpretative question, the EU Court of Justice adopted a strictly literal approach. From the analysis of the wording of Article 10(7), it emerges unequivocally that it is prohibited to present and label as ‘non-alcoholic gin‘ a non-alcoholic beverage, for the sole reason that such a product does not contain alcohol.

The ratio decidendi is founded on two fundamental elements:

• firstly, the non-alcoholic beverage is not produced by flavouring ethyl alcohol of agricultural origin, an essential requirement laid down in Annex I, point 20, for the use of the legal designation ‘gin’;
• secondly, the fact that the designation is accompanied by the indication ‘non-alcoholic’ is irrelevant for the purposes of applying the prohibition.

The Court explicitly ruled that the prohibition also applies in the presence of terms used for the purpose of indicating that a given beverage must not be confused with the spirit drink benefiting from such a designation. The addition of descriptive specifications does not therefore allow the regulatory prohibition to be circumvented.

As regards Article 12(1) of the regulation, concerning allusions to legal designations, the Court excluded its relevance in this case, given that this provision applies exclusively to foodstuffs that use alcohol in their preparation.

The question of freedom to conduct a business

With regard to the question of the compatibility of the aforementioned provision of the Spirits Regulation with the principle of freedom to conduct a business, established in Article 16 of the Charter, the Court applied the established proportionality test provided for in Article 52(1) of the Charter itself.

As a preliminary matter, the Court confirmed that the prohibition respects the essential content of freedom to conduct a business, as it solely concerns the use of the legal designations of spirit drinks, without hindering the production or distribution of beverages that do not meet the regulatory requirements. Producers remain free to market their products, provided they do not use reserved designations.

As regards the legitimacy of the objectives pursued, the Court recognised the general interest nature of multiple purposes: guaranteeing a high level of consumer protection (Article 38 of the Charter), preventing misleading practices, safeguarding information transparency, ensuring fair competition and protecting the reputation of spirit drinks, which represent an important outlet for the Union’s agricultural sector.

The strict proportionality assessment

From the perspective of suitability, the Court held that strict compliance with legal designations guarantees consumers that products meet uniform quality standards and protects them from risks of confusion regarding product composition. The prohibition also ensures that only beverages produced according to specific methods and having certain properties can be marketed with reserved legal designations, preventing undue appropriation of their reputation.

As regards the necessity of the measure, the Court highlighted that the admissibility of designations supplemented by descriptive indications such as ‘non-alcoholic’ would generate a concrete risk of confusion for consumers. Even where it is clear that the product does not contain alcohol, the consumer might be misled as to the other qualities of the product, since the requirements for the legal designation ‘gin’ also relate to elements other than the mere presence of alcohol, in particular production by flavouring ethyl alcohol of agricultural origin.

The Court further noted that tolerance of such designations would compromise the protection of the reputation acquired by producers who comply with regulatory requirements, creating a risk of unfair competition and commercial ‘free riding’.

The principle of legislative discretion in agricultural matters

In assessing the proportionality of the prohibition contained in the Spirits Regulation, the Court referred to the established case law according to which the Union legislature has broad discretionary power in matters of common agricultural policy, which involves complex assessments. Consequently, only the manifest unsuitability of a measure to achieve its stated aims can undermine its legitimacy.

In this case, the prohibition was deemed fully compliant with the principle of proportionality, as it constitutes the necessary instrument to achieve the general interest objectives pursued by the regulation, without prejudicing the substance of freedom to conduct a business.

Conclusions and systemic implications

The judgement under examination confirms the Court’s rigorous approach to protecting the legal designations of spirit drinks, in line with previous rulings concerning reserved food designations (e.g. ‘milk sounding’ and ‘cheese sounding’ in the TofuTown.com case, C-422/16). The ratio of the protection is not limited to preventing consumer deception in the strict sense, but extends to safeguarding sectoral reputation and preventing forms of undue appropriation of the commercial value associated with specific designations.

The illegality of so-called ‘gin-sounding’ for non-alcoholic products is therefore part of a system of qualified protection of legal designations, in which supplementation with descriptive or limiting specifications is not sufficient to legitimise the use of reserved designations to designate products that do not meet their substantive requirements.

The ruling therefore clearly delimits the scope of commercial lawfulness, confirming that producers of non-alcoholic beverages cannot avail themselves of the designations of spirit drinks even when the absence of alcoholic content is evident, instead having to identify alternative designations that do not evoke legally protected categories.

Reform prospects

The interpretative rigour of the Court of Justice in the judgement under examination highlights the desirability of a reform that would allow spirit drink producers to develop innovative lines aimed at the growing market segment of ‘zero alcohol‘ or low-alcohol beverages, as has already been achieved in the wine sector. Regulation (EU) 2021/2117, in the reform of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 on the common organisation of the markets in agricultural products (single CMO), indeed introduced the discipline of dealcoholised wines and partially dealcoholised wines.

The regulatory intervention, motivated by recital 40 which recognises ‘the growing consumer demand for wine products with a lower actual alcoholic strength‘, supplemented Annex VII, Part II, of the CMO regulation precisely to allow total or partial dealcoholisation treatments of wines, sparkling wines and semi-sparkling wines.

The reform provided for specific product categories: dealcoholised wines, with an actual alcoholic strength not exceeding 0.5% vol., and partially dealcoholised wines, with an alcoholic strength exceeding 0.5% vol. but below the minimum laid down for the category of origin. Particularly significant is the amendment to Article 119 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 on labelling, which made mandatory the indication of the terms ‘dealcoholised‘ or ‘partially dealcoholised‘ alongside the designation of the wine product category, thus ensuring information transparency for consumers whilst allowing the retention of the legal designation ‘wine‘.

A similar reform of Regulation (EU) 2019/787 on spirit drinks would reconcile the protection of reserved legal designations with the commercial innovation needs of sector operators. The introduction of categories such as ‘dealcoholised gin’ or ‘partially dealcoholised gin’, governed according to specific technical requirements and accompanied by mandatory labelling indications, would allow spirit drink producers to legitimately access a significantly expanding market segment at European and global level, meeting the preferences of consumers increasingly oriented towards reduced alcohol content products for various reasons, without compromising the protection of the reputation and quality associated with traditional legal designations.

Dario Dongo

+ postsBio

Dario Dongo, lawyer and journalist, PhD in international food law, founder of WIISE (FARE - GIFT - Food Times) and Égalité.

• Dario Dongo

  The EU AI Act and the agrifood sector
• Dario Dongo

  Gluten cross-contamination in household kitchens
• Dario Dongo

  Transforming orange waste into sustainable bioplastics
• Dario Dongo

  Artificial intelligence in food safety testing

Related post

Allergen labeling, the great chaos. The Utrecht study EU spice rules harm trade & safety: Reform Now EU: news on meat sounding, short supply chains, hemp and vinegar Bisphenol A toxicity, EFSA declares a public health alert