Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
3 B 32.25, 3 B 32.25 (3 C 2.26) ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2026:130526B3B32.25.0 AI generated

Wine labeling with registered vineyard site name: compatibility with EU regulation and misleading geographical indication under German law

Case Number 3 B 32.25, 3 B 32.25 (3 C 2.26)
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Germany (DE)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG) overturned the lower court's refusal to grant leave for appeal, ruling that the Revision (appeal) is admissible and directing the case forward, with the defendant's complaint prevailing at this procedural stage. The dispute concerns the use of a registered vineyard site name for wine labeling without a supplementary municipality or district name, specifically whether such practice complies with EU wine market regulations and whether it constitutes a misleading geographical indication under German law. The decisive legal basis for admitting the appeal is § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, citing the fundamental importance of clarifying the compatibility of such labeling with Art. 120 Abs. 1 lit. g of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 in conjunction with Art. 55 of Regulation (EU) 2019/33, and its classification as a misleading geographical designation under § 22b Abs. 2 WeinG.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, § 52 Abs. 1 GKG, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 i. V. m. § 47 Abs. 1 und § 52 Abs. 1 GKG; Wine labeling with registered vineyard site name: compatibility with EU regulation and misleading geographical indication under German law: The dispute concerns the use of a registered vineyard site name for wine labeling without a supplementary municipality or district name, specifically whether such practice complies with EU wine market regulations and whether it constitutes a misleading geographical indication under German law. The decisive legal basis for admitting the appeal is § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, citing the fundamental importance of clarifying the compatibility of such labeling with Art. 120 Abs. 1 lit. g of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 in conjunction with Art. 55 of Regulation (EU) 2019/33, and its classification as a misleading geographical designation under § 22b Abs. 2 WeinG.

Keywords

AI generated
geographical names european trademark geographical market marketing standards classification, labelling and packaging agricultural law

Cited Legislation

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO
The main legal basis cited in the dispositive for allowing the appeal due to the fundamental significance of the legal issues.
§ 52 Abs. 1 GKG
Die vorläufige Festsetzung des Streitwerts für das Revisionsverfahren beruht auf § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 i. V. m. § 47 Abs. 1 und § 52 Abs. 1 GKG.
§ 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 i. V. m. § 47 Abs. 1 und § 52 Abs. 1 GKG
The procedural rules cited in the dispositive for the provisional determination of the subject matter value (costs) for the revision proceedings.
AI generated
3 B 38/20
Interpretation of "vineyard area" in EU protected geographical indication product specifications vs. national vineyard registers
3 B 37/20
Interpretation of “vineyard area” in a Protected Designation of Origin specification under EU wine law versus national wine registers and transitional dates
3 B 52/15
Admissibility of Revision Challenge to Misleading "Winery" Designation Under § 25 Wine Act and EU Regulation 1169/2011
27 W (pat) 559/11
Registration of a wine-trade word mark: descriptive nature, lack of distinctiveness, and religious offensiveness of a community name
3 B 36/20
Eligibility of former vineyard plots for protected geographical indication under EU product specifications rather than national registers

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO

The main legal basis cited in the dispositive for allowing the appeal due to the fundamental significance of the legal issues.

§ 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 i. V. m. § 47 Abs. 1 und § 52 Abs. 1 GKG

The procedural rules cited in the dispositive for the provisional determination of the subject matter value (costs) for the revision proceedings.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Die Entscheidung des Oberverwaltungsgerichts Rheinland-Pfalz über die Nichtzulassung der Revision in dem Urteil vom 2. Juli 2025 wird aufgehoben.

Die Revision wird zugelassen.

Die Entscheidung über die Kosten des Beschwerdeverfahrens folgt der Kostenentscheidung in der Hauptsache.

Der Wert des Streitgegenstandes wird für das Revisionsverfahren vorläufig auf 10 000 € festgesetzt.

[GRUENDE]

Die zulässige Beschwerde des Beklagten ist begründet. Die Revision ist gemäß § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO wegen grundsätzlicher Bedeutung der Rechtssache zuzulassen. Sie wird voraussichtlich zur Klärung der Fragen beitragen, ob und gegebenenfalls unter welchen Voraussetzungen die Verwendung des Namens einer in die Weinbergsrolle eingetragenen Lage ohne den Zusatz eines Gemeinde- oder Ortsteilnamens zur Kennzeichnung eines Weins

a) mit Art. 120 Abs. 1 Buchst. g der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1308/2013 i. V. m. Art. 55 der Verordnung (EU) 2019/33 vereinbar ist,

b) eine geografische Bezeichnung, bei deren Benutzung eine Gefahr der Irreführung über die geografische Herkunft besteht, im Sinne des § 22b Abs. 2 WeinG sein kann.

Die vorläufige Festsetzung des Streitwerts für das Revisionsverfahren beruht auf § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 i. V. m. § 47 Abs. 1 und § 52 Abs. 1 GKG.