Famous Irish company Waterford Wedgwood has lost an attempt to stop a wine producer using the same name as its trademark.
European judges in Luxembourg ruled that wine and wine glasses are sufficiently different products for the two firms to share the name without confusing the public.
European Court of First Instance judges' ruling
The legal battle began when South African drinks company Assembled Investments applied for an EU trademark for "Waterford Stellenbosch" for its wines from the Stellenbosch district of South Africa.
The EU's Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market refused due to a potential clash with Waterford Wedgwood's existing "Waterford" trademark for its glassware.
But today the South African company won its appeal, thanks to a that wine and wine glasses "are distinct by nature and by their use and that they are neither in competition with one another nor substitutable".
The makers of Waterford crystal had produced photographs showing a gift pack promotion by the South African wine producers which consisted of a bottle of wine and two wine glasses, and bearing the requested "Waterford" trademark but without the "Stellenbosch".
Today's judgment acknowledged that wine glasses and wine are sometimes used together for promotional purposes but went on: "It has not been shown that the practice by wine producers is of any significant commercial importance.
"The distribution of wine glasses with wine is normally perceived by the consumers concerned as a promotional attempt to increase sales of wine rather than as an indication that the producer concerned devotes part of his activity to the distribution of article of glassware."
The judges added: "There is a degree of complementarity between some articles of glassware; in particular wine glasses, carafes and decanters on the one hand, and wine on the other, insofar as the first group of products is intended to be used for drinking wine.
"However, insofar as wine may be drunk from other vessels and the articles of glassware mentioned above can be used for other purposes, that complementarity is not sufficiently pronounced for it to be accepted that, from the consumer's point of view, the goods in question are similar."
AP