Wine Law

4 This argument had already been sated by the High Court in the Auto Moto case 12 . The sports magazine had published an image showing Michael Schumacher winning the Australian Grand Prix of Formula 1 holding a bottle of Mumm Champagne with, in the background, an advertising for Foster’s bear. It was held that the picture was indeed to be qualified as advertising as far as Loi Evin was concerned. Paris Match , another French magazine, was also held responsible on the same ground for publishing photos of Scarlett Johansson holding a bottle of Champagne, even though it was in the framework of an editorial article on the actress, reporting the fact that she was the new brand ambassador of Moet & Chandon 13 . As demonstrated, the definition of advertising is so broad that it also covers purely editorial content (not only in newspapers or magazines but possibly in novels, cookbooks or personal blogs as well), regardless of whether the said content is at the request or at the benefit of the trademark holder, not having an onerous character at all. According to the wine industry, case laws like these ones considerably limit communication, as magazines and TV broadcast are bound to self-censorship 14 , consequently having an impact on trademarks as well. 2.1.2. The impact on trademarks As mentioned before, according to the law, indirect advertising is broadly defined, by article L.3323-3 of the Public Health Code, as any advertising in favour of an entity, service, activity, product or article that is not an alcoholic beverage but that, by its graphics, presentation, name, 12 Cass. crim. (Court of Cassation, Criminal Division), 3 November 2004, no. 04-81.123. 13 TGI Paris, 21 March 2013, no. 11/03234. 14 Franck Duquesnois, “Vin, droit et santé: la communication impossible?”, Vin, Droit & Santé, 2014, Les Editions Hospitalières, pp. 55 et seq .