NoLo wines: wine-law framework, PDO/PGI and labelling

Abstract

This study examines the complex legal framework of NoLo wines — non-alcoholic and low-alcohol wine products — in the European Union and in Portugal, through three integrated dimensions: wine law and food regulation, intellectual property, and customs/export procedures.

The 2021 reform of EU wine legislation, which expressly recognised the categories of de-alcoholised wine and partially de-alcoholised wine, marks a decisive turning point. It responds to changing consumption habits, public-health concerns, climate pressure and technological innovation, but also opens difficult legal questions concerning category integrity, origin, labelling and market communication.

The Portuguese source text argues that NoLo products face a triple legal barrier in the current state of the law: structural incompatibility with PDO/PGI product specifications; a high risk of conflict by evocation in trade-mark and GI law; and considerable customs complexity in relation to tariff classification, documentary proof and export compliance.

1. The central legal problem

The key question is not simply whether de-alcoholised products can be marketed. The deeper issue is whether a product that has undergone de-alcoholisation may still remain inside the legal and symbolic orbit of wine as traditionally protected by EU wine law, PDO/PGI specifications and consumer expectations attached to origin.

In other words, NoLo products sit at the intersection of category law, territorial identity and market communication. They cannot be analysed only through food law or only through industrial property. They must be read through the integrated logic of wine law, GI law, trade-mark strategy and customs practice.

2. Wine-law framework after the 2021 reform

At EU level, the analysis starts with Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2021/2117, together with Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/934 on authorised oenological practices and the broader body of technical standards of the OIV. The reform created explicit room for the legal recognition of de-alcoholised and partially de-alcoholised wine products, but that recognition does not solve every downstream qualification problem.

The Portuguese source text highlights a basic tension: de-alcoholisation may be legally recognised as a process, yet the resulting product may no longer fit the defining requirements of a protected designation or geographical indication, particularly where the relevant specification presupposes a minimum alcoholic strength and a product identity intrinsically linked to terroir and traditional composition.

That is why the debate is not merely technological. It is constitutional, in the internal sense of the wine sector: it concerns what remains of the legal identity of wine once alcohol — historically and normatively one of its structuring elements — is removed or materially reduced.

3. PDO/PGI, terroir and the limits of de-alcoholisation

A central thesis of the Portuguese article is that de-alcoholisation sits uneasily with the logic of PDO/PGI protection. The specifications of many protected wine names are not limited to geographic provenance: they also define oenological characteristics, minimum alcohol thresholds, organoleptic profile and the legal expression of a historical link between place and product.

Removing alcohol may therefore break more than a technical feature. It may sever the causal link between territory, production method and the final product profile. From that perspective, the issue is not only whether the product was once wine, but whether it still qualifies, after transformation, as the same protected product for the purposes of EU GI law.

The article therefore argues for caution in associating NoLo products with prestigious PDOs or PGIs. Even where a producer wishes merely to communicate origin or heritage, the use of protected names may trigger legal objections grounded in product-specification incompatibility, dilution of identity or unlawful evocation.

4. Labelling, food information and consumer perception

Labelling is another decisive field. NoLo products must be read against the combined logic of wine legislation and general food-information rules, including Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011. The categories used in marketing, the way reduced alcohol is described, and the distinction between “low” and “reduced” claims all affect the legality and intelligibility of the label.

The Portuguese study stresses that transparency is not only a compliance requirement; it is also a protection against category confusion. Consumers must not be led to believe that a transformed product still falls naturally within the same legal and qualitative universe as a traditional PDO/PGI wine, if that is no longer true.

For that reason, NoLo labelling should avoid ambiguous borrowing from protected product vocabularies unless the legal basis is secure. The same prudence extends to visual language, references to terroir and the framing of product identity on back labels, websites and export documentation.

5. Distinctive protection, trade marks and evocation risk

The source text also offers a sustained reflection on industrial-property strategy. It discusses the evolution of decisions on similarity between goods in Classes 32 and 33 of the Nice Classification and examines how NoLo products may generate trade-mark filing strategies that appear attractive commercially but remain legally exposed.

The most sensitive difficulty lies in the doctrine of evocation under GI law. The case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union — including decisions commonly associated with Gorgonzola, Scotch Whisky / Glen Buchenbach and Champanillo — shows that the protection of geographical indications extends well beyond literal imitation. It may catch verbal, visual or conceptual associations capable of calling a protected name to the consumer’s mind.

By analogy, a NoLo strategy that attempts to appropriate the aura of a prestigious wine denomination through nearby language, suggestive imagery or parasitic brand construction may face a very high level of legal risk. The Portuguese text uses comparative examples to show that the legal barrier is not only doctrinal but also practical: brand clearance, opposition strategy and enforcement become much harder when a sign operates near a protected geographical field.

6. Customs classification and export procedures

The customs dimension is often neglected in public discussions about NoLo wines, but the Portuguese article treats it as structurally important. Once the product no longer falls neatly within the classic wine heading, tariff classification may shift, with consequences for documentation, proof of origin, certificates, export compliance and destination-market rules.

The text therefore recommends particular attention to binding tariff information, product description, sanitary certification and destination-specific labelling requirements. This is especially important in non-EU markets where different agencies or parallel rule sets may apply to alcohol, food information and product categorisation.

From a practical standpoint, the customs question confirms that NoLo products should not be approached merely as a marketing extension of traditional wine. They may require a distinct compliance pathway from the moment they leave the winery and enter cross-border trade.

7. Practical recommendations and future regulatory paths

The Portuguese article concludes by proposing a pragmatic approach. Producers and advisers should work with clean distinctive strategies, exhaustive clearance searches, cautious treatment of geographical references, and an early review of customs and export formalities. Preventive legal design is essential: once a NoLo product is positioned too close to a protected wine identity, the room for safe correction narrows rapidly.

At a broader regulatory level, the text suggests that the current framework may eventually require a specific quality scheme or legally recognised category capable of acknowledging origin without compromising the integrity of traditional PDO/PGI names. Whether such a solution emerges at EU or national level, the debate shows that NoLo wines are becoming a genuine test case for the future coherence of European wine law.

Informational note

This article is generic and informational. For comments or further information, please contact joao@joaoamaral.law.