Dry January once again highlights how the no/low alcohol brands test the boundaries of how drinks can be described. The total UK no/low market is understood to have more than doubled in the last three years and this growth shows no signs of slowing down.
Despite consumers referring to “alcohol-free gin” and “Champagne-style fizz” during Dry January, brands cannot do the same.
For drinks businesses, understanding the legal limits around protected terms is no longer optional - it is now central to launching and marketing products safely.
This legal protection was underscored at the end of 2025, when the Court of Justice of the European Union was asked to consider and determine whether a non-alcoholic product could be marketed as “Gin” simply because it was clearly labelled as "alcohol-free". The Court’s answer was unequivocal. Under EU law, Gin is a defined spirit category, not a loose description of flavour. It must contain alcohol, meet a minimum strength of 37.5% ABV and be flavoured predominantly with juniper. Because alcohol is a defining element of Gin, a 0.0% product cannot legally be described as Gin, regardless of how transparent the labelling may be.
In legal terms, the word “Gin” is reserved for products that meet specific criteria, ; where those criteria are not met, the name simply cannot be used. Adding qualifiers such as “non-alcoholic” or “zero” does not change that position, because the issue is not one of clarification but of using a protected category designation without meeting its requirements.
Champagne is the best-known example of name/designation protection and where brands need to be wary. The name can only be used for sparkling wine produced in the Champagne region of France using prescribed grapes and methods, a position enforced internationally for decades. This is why producers increasingly describe products as “alternatives to Champagne” rather than “Champagne-style”, recognising that even indirect references can attract challenge.
In both cases, the law is designed to protect value rather than restrict creativity. Designations such as Champagne and Gin reflect decades of investment, regulation and reputation and allowing products that fall outside the rules to use the same terminology would dilute that value, cause confusion and undermine consumer trust. Courts and regulators therefore take a strict approach, even where marketing is not intended to confuse or 'piggy-back' on the reputation.
The impact on UK brands and retailers
For drinks businesses, the consequences of getting this wrong are increasingly tangible and financially costly. If brands do not conform, products will be withdrawn from sale, names will be changed across multiple markets, and reputational damage that far outweighs any short-term benefit gained from using restricted language.
No/low alcohol producers are particularly exposed. Consumer familiarity plays a powerful role in purchasing decisions and established category names can feel like the most efficient way to communicate flavour or occasion. The European Court ruling, however, makes clear that regulators are far less concerned with whether a label feels intuitive than whether a business is legally entitled to use the name at all. If a product does not meet the legal criteria attached to a protected term, clarity of labelling does not cure the problem.
The most effective way to manage this risk is to treat naming and product description as a legal consideration from the outset, rather than something to review once branding is finalised.
Disputes arise because names, branding, product descriptions etc. are developed creatively first and assessed legally later, by which point packaging, marketing materials and retail listings may already be ordered or in circulation and costly to unwind.
We saw this happen recently with Della Vite, a vegan prosecco brand founded by the Delevingne sisters, which was accused of exploiting the reputation of champagne by feature the slogans “Cheat on champagne” and “Warning: This is not champagne” in marketing materials.
Similarly, Folc, a sparkling wine producer in Kent, received a legal letter from French Champagne company, Bollinger, after it referred to it in an advert saying: “None of the same old Bollie... It's not Champagne, It's Pink Champers." The protest about not understanding their sense of humour is definitely a bit tongue-in-cheek and certainly disingenuous as Folc was clearly trying to take advantage of the reputation of champagne by its reference to 'Champers' and specifically Bollinger in relation to 'Bollie'.
Brands can avoid disputes like these by careful use of comparative language. Describing a product as a “gin alternative” or a “botanical spirit inspired by gin” is generally safer than calling it “alcohol-free gin”, because it avoids claiming membership of a protected category while still communicating flavour cues and attracting consumers. The distinction may seem subtle, but legally it is significant and increasingly well understood by regulators.
It's not just brands that must be mindful of this - retailers have a role to play as well since stocking products that misuse protected terms can expose retailers to reputational risk, particularly as enforcement becomes more consistent across the supply chain. Clear product descriptions and a working understanding of protected categories are increasingly part of good retail governance, rather than an optional compliance exercise.
Looking ahead to the rest of 2026, naming brands is becoming a strategic issue rather than a technical one. In a crowded no/low alcohol market, the brands most likely to succeed will be those that develop their own language and identity, rather than relying on protected names they do not own.
Getting this right early is not just about avoiding disputes - it is about protecting long-term brand value in an industry where credibility and trust matter more than ever.
This article was published in Drinks Retailing - read the original article here.
