Bubbles burst: Prosecco dispute heads to trial

Introduction

Case: Consorzio di Tutela della Denominazione di Origine Controllata Prosecco v Prosecco International Ltd [2026] EWHC 912 (IPEC)

The High Court has refused to bring an early end to a dispute over the use of the PROSECCO name on sparkling wine and related websites. The decision is a useful reminder that, where the facts are disputed, the court is unlikely to strike out an IP claim before trial – particularly where there are questions about who controlled the relevant websites, what UK consumers saw, and whether any UK-focused relief may still be available.

Key points for businesses

• Strike-out applications face a high bar. If there are important factual disputes, the court is likely to let the case proceed to trial rather than decide the issues summarily.
• UK proceedings can still matter in cross-border disputes. Even where related proceedings are ongoing overseas, the UK court may hear claims focused on conduct directed at UK consumers.
• Website control is key. Businesses should be able to evidence who owns, operates and controls websites, domain names and online content.
• Relief may be limited to UK impact. A UK claim will generally focus on UK-facing infringement and remedies connected to the UK market.
• Protected names and certification marks need careful handling. Businesses using geographical indications or protected product names should check that product descriptions, branding and online content are accurate and compliant.

Background

The claim was brought by the Consorzio, the body responsible for protecting the PROSECCO designation. It alleges that Prosecco International and the individual defendants infringed its IP rights through the use of “PROSECCO” on bottles of sparkling wine called Bella Principessa and through websites connected with the domain names prosecco.com and proseccodoc.com.

The Consorzio relies on the legal protection given to PROSECCO as a Protected Designation of Origin and on its UK registered certification mark for PROSECCO. The defendants asked the court to strike out the claim, or alternatively to give summary judgment in their favour, arguing that the claim had no real prospect of success.

The defendants relied on three main arguments:

1. any relief would be negligible, because the allegedly infringing wine had not been sold and no longer appeared on the relevant websites;
2. the wrong parties had been sued, because the domain names had been assigned to a US company, Best Drinks LLC; and
3. the dispute should instead be dealt with in the Eastern District of Virginia, where related US proceedings were taking place.

Decision

The court dismissed the application. It held that the Consorzio’s claims had a realistic prospect of success and should be decided at trial. The court was also not prepared to narrow the issues at this stage because most of them depended on factual matters that still needed to be tested.

Relief was not necessarily negligible

The court could not decide, on the evidence available, that any remedy would be too small to justify the claim continuing. In particular, there remained questions about the extent and impact of the alleged UK-facing use of the PROSECCO name, and the defendants had not offered undertakings dealing with the websites.

The court needed more evidence on who controlled the websites

The court was not satisfied that Prosecco International was plainly the wrong defendant. The assignment of the domain names to Best Drinks LLC did not answer the separate question of who controlled how the websites were presented to UK consumers. The court noted that there was limited evidence about the role played by each entity and individual defendant.

The court also indicated that, if Best Drinks LLC was said to be the only party responsible for the websites, the more appropriate course may have been to join that company to the proceedings rather than seek to dispose of the claim summarily.

The UK court could deal with UK-facing issues

Although the defendants were time-barred from disputing forum, the court confirmed that the UK claim was focused on the presentation of the websites to UK consumers and any UK impact of the alleged infringement. On that basis, the claim was separate from the related proceedings in the Eastern District of Virginia.

The court also noted that there were outstanding disputes about whether Bella Principessa complied with the PDO specification. Those issues required a trial.

The Birketts view

This decision is helpful for businesses operating online across borders. It shows that a UK IP claim will usually be concerned with UK-facing conduct and UK impact, rather than acting as a worldwide determination of the parties’ rights. That can be reassuring for defendants, but it also means claimants need to think carefully about where the commercial harm is felt and which courts can grant the most effective relief.

The judgment is also a reminder that UK jurisdiction may still be relevant where a business has a UK presence or where websites and marketing are directed at UK consumers. Businesses should not assume that moving domain ownership or pointing to overseas proceedings will be enough to avoid UK litigation.

For brand owners and businesses using protected names, the practical lesson is to keep clear records of product compliance, website control, domain ownership, marketing approvals and decision-making. Those records can be important evidence if responsibility for an alleged infringement is later disputed.

If you are dealing with a dispute involving protected designations, certification marks, domain names or online targeting, our intellectual property disputes, and Trade Marks and Branding.