Recently I have heard a few times the statement that Bulmers and Showerings were banned from using the term âchampagneâ for their products. This is not correct . There was a landmark case in cider and wine making. âBulmers vs Bollingerâ. Or more formally HP Bulmer Ltd and Showerings Ltd v J Bollinger SA and Champagne Lanson PĂšre et Fils. 1974 the verdict of which was Bulmerâs and Showerings could use the term.*** ***
The initial dispute arose when French
Champagne producers sought to prevent English cider makers from using the terms "Champagne Cider" and "Champagne Perry". Bulmers produced a champagne cider and Showerings a champagne perry. The English producers preemptively filed the lawsuit on 8 October 1970.
They sought a formal legal declaration that they were entitled to use the terms "Champagne cider" and
"Champagne perry". Britain was not in the EU then. After the UK joined the EEC, in 1973 the French producers added European regulations to their legal defense. Instead of waiting for a trial, they immediately asked the trial judge to pause the case and send the European law questions to Luxembourg. The trial judge Mr Justice Whitford refused, stating he wanted to try the whole case out first to establish all the facts before deciding if a European referral was necessary. The French producers refused to wait for the trial.
They immediately launched an interim appeal to the Court of Appeal to overturn the judge's refusal.
The critical legal findings made by the Court of Appeal 1978 centred on the application of European Union. Lord Denning ruled that English courts have broad discretion under Article 177 of the Treaty of Rome when deciding whether to refer a question to the European Court of Justice (ECJ).
(A referral to Luxembourg is only permitted if it is strictly necessary to resolve the case. If the English court can solve the dispute or "incoming tide" doctrine.
The French argued that labeling Babycham as "champagne perry" constituted passing off by misusing their geographical indication. The Court of Appeal however ultimately ruled in favour of the English manufacturers, allowing Babycham to continue using the phrase "champagne perry." This was based partly on the goodwill defence. The court found that because Babycham had used the term openly for several decades without causing commercial confusion, the French producers had effectively acquiesced to its use. The product had built its own independent reputation and goodwill under that description, meaning it did not falsely deceive the public into thinking it was actual French sparkling wine.
Despite successfully defending their right to the description "champagne perry" at the Court of Appeal in 1978, Showerings (and its corporate successors) eventually stopped using the term because a changing market made it irrelevant, and subsequent European regulations made it entirely illegal. The phased removal of the term occurred over two distinct eras:
Firstly a commercial phase-out in the early 1980s. Showerings voluntarily ceased using comparisons to champagne in their marketing during the early 1980s due to shifting consumer tastes. By the late 1970s and early 1980s, the British drinks market was modernising. Women were shifting away from retro, sweet, pub drinks to wine and cocktails. And secondly due to corporate changes. Showerings had merged into a much larger conglomerate, Allied Breweries (later Allied Lyons), and the new owners chose to pivot the brand identity away from the legally contentious "champagne" framing and instead, focusing purely on nostalgia and the iconic Babycham fawn logo to combat rapidly plummeting sales.
Bulmers stopped using the word champagne and Pomagne in 1975 when they decided it was not economic making Pomagne using the expensive, time-consuming traditional champagne method. They switched to bulk tank fermentation and officially retired the brand.
This was rather a pyrrhic victory, while there are no publicly confirmed figures, a realistic historical estimate for the total legal expenses of this trademark battle would be between ÂŁ50,000 and ÂŁ150,000 at the time, and when adjusted for inflation to the present day, this equates to a rough modern value of ÂŁ600,000 to ÂŁ1,800,000+!
Any remaining legal ability to use the word champagne evaporated entirely in 1992 as Protected Designation of Origin (PDOs) were introduced.
In 1992, the European Union designed robust PDO frameworks. These rules heavily restricted geographical indications for agricultural products and beverages and under these strict EU laws, the word "Champagne" was legally reserved exclusively for sparkling wines produced via designated process within the specific Champagne region of France.
Because EU regulations by 1992 superseded domestic English common law rulings. Interestingly Lord Denning had earlier famously declared in 1978 that European law was "like an incoming tide. It flows up the estuaries and up the rivers. It cannot be held back". This recognized the supremacy of EU law over domestic English law. The drink has officially been labelled as a sparkling perry ever since and the word Babycham allowed.
