The French Cour de cassation Clarifies the Scope of Alcohol Advertising Rules: The “Levrette” Beer Case
France’s Highest Court Draws a Clear Line Between Product Packaging, Commercial Names and Alcohol Advertising under the Law Evin.
On 20 January 2026, the Criminal Chamber of the French Cour de cassation handed down an important decision concerning the scope of French rules governing advertising for alcoholic beverages (Cour de cassation, Criminal Chamber, 20 January 2026, No. 24-83.474).
The decision, published in the Bulletin of the Cour de cassation, provides useful guidance on the distinction between product naming, packaging and advertising content under the French law Evin.
Legal Framework: Strict Restrictions on Alcohol Advertising
The French law Evin strictly regulates the advertising and promotion of alcoholic beverages.
Article L. 3323-4 of the Public Health Code limits authorised alcohol advertising to specified categories of information concerning the product. These include, in particular, the alcoholic strength by volume, origin, name and composition of the product, the name and address of the manufacturer, agents and distributors, the method of production, terms of sale and method of consumption.
The provision also permits certain references relating to the place of production, distinctions obtained, protected designations and geographical indications, as well as objective references to the colour and olfactory and taste characteristics of the product.
The underlying principle is that alcohol advertising cannot freely promote a lifestyle or an image associated with alcohol consumption. Its content must remain within the categories authorised by law.
Article L. 3323-4 also contains a specific rule concerning packaging: the packaging of an alcoholic beverage may be reproduced in advertising provided that it complies with the requirements governing authorised advertising.
The interpretation of this rule became one of the central issues in the “Levrette” case.
Background of the Case: The “Levrette” Beer Controversy
The proceedings concerned a company producing and marketing several beers under the commercial name “Levrette”.
The meaning of the name is relevant to understanding the dispute. In French, levrette literally refers to a female greyhound, but the term also carries a suggestive sexual connotation in everyday language. Certain elements of the company's branding and marketing played on this double meaning.
In a judgment of 15 May 2024, the Paris Court of Appeal found the company guilty of several instances of unlawful advertising of alcoholic beverages.
The Court of Appeal considered, in particular, that the beer bottles' packaging was being used for advertising purposes. On that basis, it subjected the packaging itself to the restrictions laid down in Article L. 3323-4.
The Court of Appeal also examined the company's website, which contained the “Levrette” name together with various slogans, drawings and other promotional elements. It considered that certain aspects of this advertising relied on suggestive references falling outside the categories of information permitted under Article L. 3323-4.
As regards the name “Levrette” itself, the Court of Appeal considered that it had been chosen to facilitate wordplay based on its suggestive meaning. It therefore concluded that its use on the website did not amount to purely informative advertising authorised by the Public Health Code.
The company appealed to the Cour de cassation. Among other arguments, it submitted that the Court of Appeal had confused packaging with the reproduction of packaging in advertising, and that “Levrette”, irrespective of its suggestive meaning, remained the commercial name of the beers and therefore constituted an authorised use.
The Cour de cassation's Ruling
The Cour de cassation upheld the company's arguments on both issues and partially quashed the judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal.
1. Packaging and Advertising Must Be Distinguished
The first issue concerned the scope of Article L. 3323-4 as regards the packaging of alcoholic beverages.
The Paris Court of Appeal had reasoned that, because the bottles and their packaging served a promotional function, they could themselves be subjected to the restrictions governing alcohol advertising.
The Cour de cassation rejected this interpretation.
The Court relied on the wording of Article L. 3323-4, which expressly provides that the packaging may be reproduced in advertising if it complies with the requirements laid down by that provision. For the Court, this wording necessarily implies a distinction between the packaging itself and its subsequent reproduction as part of an advertisement.
Consequently, the restrictions imposed by Article L. 3323-4 on the content of alcohol advertising do not apply directly to the packaging itself. The fact that packaging has an attractive design or performs a marketing function is not sufficient to subject it, as such, to the rules governing advertising content.
The situation is different once the packaging is reproduced in an advertisement — for example, in advertising material displaying an image of the bottle. In that context, the statutory requirements governing alcohol advertising apply to the reproduction.
This distinction prevents the rules governing advertising from being extended to packaging beyond the scope expressly provided for by the legislation.
2. The Product Name Does Not Have to Be Purely Informative
The second issue concerned the use of the commercial name “Levrette” on the company's website.
Article L. 3323-4 expressly includes the name (dénomination) of the product among the information that may appear in advertising.
The Paris Court of Appeal had nevertheless treated the use of “Levrette” as unlawful because the name had a suggestive meaning and had been used as part of wordplay in the company's marketing. In other words, it effectively required the product name itself to satisfy a criterion of purely informative content.
The Cour de cassation rejected that approach.
It held that “Levrette”, as the commercial name under which the beers were marketed, constituted their dénomination within the meaning of Article L. 3323-4. Its suggestive connotation did not deprive it of that legal character.
The significance of this reasoning lies in the distinction between the nature of the information and its content. Article L. 3323-4 authorises the dénomination of the product. It does not provide that such a name must itself be descriptive, neutral or devoid of any additional meaning.
Accordingly, a distinctive, humorous or suggestive product name does not become prohibited merely because it conveys more than objective information about the beverage. Once the term genuinely constitutes the commercial name of the product, it falls within one of the categories expressly authorised by the statute.
This does not, however, mean that all advertising developed around such a name is permissible.
The Limits of the Decision
The Cour de cassation only partially quashed the judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal. This point is important in understanding the scope of the decision.
The Court did not hold that the company's entire advertising campaign was lawful. Other promotional content, including certain slogans, drawings and elements surrounding the product name, remained subject to the restrictions imposed by the Law Evin.
There is therefore an important distinction between using “Levrette” as the name of the product and developing additional advertising content around the suggestive meaning of that name.
The former is permitted because the product's dénomination is expressly authorised by Article L. 3323-4. The latter must still be assessed independently to determine whether it falls within the categories of advertising content permitted by law.
The case was referred back to the Paris Court of Appeal, differently constituted, for reconsideration within the limits of the partial cassation.
Practical Implications
The decision provides useful guidance for alcoholic beverage producers, distributors and advertisers operating in France.
First, it confirms that packaging and advertising are distinct legal concepts for the purposes of Article L. 3323-4. Packaging does not become subject to the restrictions governing advertising content merely because it performs a promotional function. Those restrictions apply when the packaging is reproduced as part of advertising.
Second, the judgment confirms that a distinctive or suggestive commercial name may still constitute the authorised dénomination of an alcoholic beverage. The Law Evin does not require a product name to be purely descriptive or neutral before it may appear in advertising.
Third, businesses should not interpret the decision as allowing them to circumvent the Law Evin by building an advertising campaign around the suggestive meaning of a product name. While the name itself may be authorised, the slogans, images, storytelling and other promotional content surrounding it remain subject to an independent compliance assessment.
This distinction is particularly relevant for websites, social media and other forms of digital marketing, where product names, packaging images and broader brand content frequently appear together.
The “Levrette” judgment therefore provides a useful clarification of the boundaries of French alcohol advertising law: the product name, the packaging and the surrounding advertising content must each be identified and assessed according to the specific rules applicable to them under Article L. 3323-4 of the Public Health Code.
