Wine Law

6 enable the collective information not on the product itself but its production, without being accused of propaganda 19 . For example, the project of the TV channel Deovino dedicated to wine, which had been censored in 2012, could arguably be authorised under these new provisions 20 . This exclusion from the scope of Loi Evin seems obvious given all the efforts made by France and the European Union to value the wine production through geographical indications. However, this has had no real impact as far as private trademarks are concerned. 2.1.4. The total prohibition of sponsorship Sponsorship is material support to an event, product or organisation in order to get a direct benefit in return through advertising 21 . In turn, corporate philanthropy, which is admitted 22 , is material support to a charity dedicated to an “operation of rehabilitation of natural or cultural legacy” or “humanitarian action” without any benefit – or very limited because the funder can only be quoted as such on websites, memorials or documents circulated during the event . The main difference is that latter is selfless, while the former is based on interests 23 . Sponsorship of alcohol in France is still visible at broadcasted events that take place abroad, in countries where alcohol advertising is not prohibited, and when blurring is not possible or, of course, on foreigner channels 24 . This raises the question of the alibi trademarks that are sometimes used to circumvent this interdiction. However, they most likely fall into the category of prohibited indirect advertising mentioned before 25 . 19 Ronan Raffray, “Terroir et publicité pour le vin”, Vin, Droit & Santé 2017, Les Editions Hospitalières, pp. 61 et seq . 20 State Council of 11 July 2012, no. 351253. 21 Article L. 3323-2 of the Public Health Code. 22 Article L. 3323-6 of the Public Health Code. 23 Although sponsorship can be a source of crucial funding, as pointed out by Eric Agostini, “Les Méfaits de la loi Evin”, Vin, Droit & Santé 2012, Les Editions Hospitalières, pp. 27 et seq . 24 See ECJ, 13 July 2004, C-429/02 on such broadcasted event. 25 For an example of tolerance: TGI Paris, 24 May 2017, no. 14/14261 (ANPAA lodged an appeal).