Consorzio di Tutela Della Denominazione di Origine Controllata Prosecco v Prosecco International Ltd & Ors

On an application for summary judgment, the court must decide whether the claim has a realistic prospect of success without conducting a mini-trial. The court may determine a short point of law or construction where the evidence is sufficient, but should allow a trial where further evidence could reasonably affect the outcome. A defendant cannot obtain judgment merely by asserting that another person operated the relevant website if responsibility remains evidentially arguable. Nor can the court assume that past infringement caused negligible damage where the evidence permits a significant loss. Parallel foreign proceedings do not displace a claim concerning acts of infringement directed at consumers in this jurisdiction.

The claimant, a body protecting the Protected Designation of Origin Prosecco, brought claims against a company and two individuals for alleged infringement of EU Regulation No. 1308/2013 and a UK certification mark. The claims concerned the use of PROSECCO on websites said to target UK consumers, including in relation to non-conforming drinks and unrelated services.

The defendants applied under CPR 3.4(2)(a) or (b), alternatively for summary judgment. They argued that the claim was not worth pursuing, that the wrong defendants had been sued because a US company owned the domain names, and that related proceedings in the Eastern District of Virginia were the proper forum.

1. Summary judgment principles. The court adopted the approach summarised in Melaris v Mindhouse Productions Ltd [2026] EWHC 690 (IPEC), drawing on Easyair Ltd v Opal Telecom Ltd [2009] EWHC 339 (Ch). The question was whether the claimant had a realistic, rather than fanciful, prospect of success. The court was not to conduct a mini-trial, but could critically examine evidence and decide a short legal or construction point where the necessary evidence was available.
2. A party relying on further evidence at trial must describe its nature, source and relevance. A bare assertion that something may turn up is insufficient: Korea National Insurance Corporation v Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty AG [2007] EWCA Civ 1066. Here, responsibility for the websites and the conformity of the wines with the PDO specification required determination at trial.
3. The transfer of the domain names to Best Drinks LLC did not establish that the defendants had no responsibility for presentation of the websites to UK consumers. The claim sought relief for alleged UK infringement, not ownership or transfer of the domain names. Even if Best Drinks LLC had been solely responsible, joinder rather than summary judgment would have been the appropriate course.
4. The defendants had not shown that the claim was negligible for the purposes of Jameel v Dow Jones & Co Inc [2005] EWCA Civ 75. The admitted past use of PROSECCO with unrelated drinks and services might have caused significant damage, and the absence of an undertaking left a realistic prospect of injunctive relief.
5. The application was dismissed. No part of the pleaded claim was clearly separately identifiable as having no prospect of success, and the infringement issues were to proceed to trial.

First-instance decision on the defendants’ application for strike-out or summary judgment. The judgment records parallel proceedings in the Eastern District of Virginia but no appellate decision in this litigation.