The parties

Consorzio Di Tutela Della Denominazione Di Origine Controllata Prosecco (the Consorzio) is the body appointed by the Italian Ministry of Agriculture to protect and promote the protected designation of origin "Prosecco" (PDO Prosecco). Prosecco is the name given to certain wines produced in the northeast of Italy.

Prosecco International Ltd is a UK company involved in distilling, rectifying and blending spirits as well as manufacturing wine from grape.

The dispute

The Consorzio alleges that Prosecco International Ltd, together with its directors (the defendants) have infringed the EU Regulations protecting designations of origin (these regulations have been assimilated into UK law via the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018). The Consorzio also claims that the defendants have infringed its UK certification mark for PROSECCO pursuant to sections 10(2) and 10(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1994.

The claim is centred on activities across two websites: prosecco.com and proseccodoc.com. The alleged acts of infringement include:

1. Use of PROSECCO in association with drinks that do not comply with the PDO Prosecco specification.
2. Use of PROSECCO in association investment and partnership opportunities which are unrelated to the PDO Prosecco specification.
3. Use of PROSECCO as part of the company name, Prosecco International Ltd.
4. Use of PROSECCO for a blog called “Prosecco Blog”.
5. Use of PROSECCO in relation to Asolo Prosecco wine, which allegedly does not conform to the PDO Prosecco specification.

The application

The defendants applied to strike out the claim, or, alternatively, seek summary judgment in their favour, by relying on three principal arguments:

1. The relief to which the Consorzio would be entitled to is negligible, making the proceedings not worth the candle.
2. The claim has been brought against the wrong defendants as the websites are owned and operated by Best Drinks LLC, a US company.
3. There are pending proceedings in the Eastern District of Viginia in the US between the Consorzio and Best Drinks LLC.

The decision

The court dismissed the application in its entirety.

On the question of jurisdiction, the court noted that the defendants had failed to challenge the jurisdiction of the UK courts within the prescribed time period. In any event, the court found that the defendants' second and third arguments fundamentally misunderstood the nature of the claim. The proceedings are not concerned with the transfer of the two domain names. The claim is directed at alleged acts of infringement carried out in the UK via those websites. Any relief granted at trial would be limited to the presentation of the websites in the UK, and any damages would relate solely to the impact of the infringing acts within the UK. On that basis, the claim is entirely independent of the dispute in Virginia.

The court also noted the absence of any evidence to support the assertion that none of the defendants were involved in the UK presentation of the two websites. On the contrary, evidence filed by the defendants in the Virginia proceedings indicated that the domain names had been assigned by Prosecco International to Best Drinks LLC and that Best Drinks LLC's place of business was the same address as Prosecco International's address for service.

As for the argument that any damage to the Consorzio had been negligible, the court declined to accept this on the evidence available. While the defendants sought to rely on the fact that the websites now display only wines that conform to the PDO Prosecco specification, witness evidence to support this was filed just days before the hearing and was not filed in compliance with procedural rules. Since the Consorzio disputes whether those products do in fact conform to the PDO specification, the court concluded that this issue could only properly be resolved at trial.

In short

This case serves as a useful reminder of the robust protections afforded to geographical indications and certification marks under UK law, even in the post-Brexit landscape.

Companies cannot easily avoid liability for alleged infringement by pointing to a related overseas entity. Further, the existence of parallel foreign proceedings will not provide grounds to dismiss a UK claim where the causes of action and relief sought are distinct. Finally, the courts will add little weight to evidence that is late and/or procedurally non-compliant.

Case details at a glance

Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Decision level: IPEC
Parties: Consorzio di Tutela Della Denominazione di Origine Controllata Prosecco v Prosecco International Ltd & Others
Date: 15 April 2026
Citation: [2026] EWHC 912 
Decision: dycip.com/2026-ewhc-912-ipec