Dubai chocolate, which appears to have been created for the first time by chocolate manufacturers in Dubai, the largest city in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and the capital of the Emirate of Dubai, has recently been the subject of a real hype and owes its popularity to social media. Dubai chocolate bars are filled milk chocolate bars, where the filling consists of roasted and chopped kadayif or kunafa dough threads, better known for its use in baklava, chopped pistachios or pistachio paste and often also tahina (sesame paste). Dubai chocolate has caused long queues in front of shops and is sold at premium prices, 100 grams of Dubai chocolate marketed at between EUR 8 and 10, while resales on the Internet are sometimes offered for hundreds of euro. This article addresses legal issues on origin labelling, geographical indications, quality issues, such as the fat content of Dubai chocolate, and the use of additives. Finally, food safety matters are discussed, as food contaminants like glycidol esters and aflatoxins have recently been detected in Dubai chocolate following tests in Germany.
May Dubai chocolate contain other vegetable fats than cocoa butter?
Products marketed as Dubai chocolate often contain vegetable fats other than cocoa butter, particularly palm oil. May these products still be denominated as “chocolate” in the EU? The EU defines a number of specific common rules for cocoa and chocolate products, which complement the general legislation applicable to foodstuffs. These rules concerning the composition, sales names, labelling, and presentation are set out in Directive 2000/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to cocoa and chocolate products intended for human consumption. With respect to the composition of cocoa and chocolate products, this Directive determines the possibility to use a quantity of vegetable fats other than cocoa butter, but which may not exceed 5% in the end product. The vegetable fats (other than cocoa butter), which may be used, are listed in Annex II to the Directive, namely listing palm oil and five other non-lauric vegetable fats. The rules on other vegetable fats were established after a compromise was reached between countries like the UK and Ireland, where chocolate usually contains also vegetable fats other than cocoa, and ‘traditionalists’ like Belgium and Italy, where chocolate producers only use cocoa butter. It was basically agreed to state on the label whether it is made of pure cocoa butter or not (see Trade Perspectives, Issue No. 22 of 3 December 2010). According to Article 2(2) of Directive 2000/36/EC, the labelling of chocolate products, such as milk chocolate, containing vegetable fats other than cocoa butter, must bear the statement: “contains vegetable fats in addition to cocoa butter”. This statement is to be placed on the packaging in the same field of vision as the list of ingredients, clearly separated from that list, in lettering at least as large and in bold with the sales name nearby. Dubai chocolate with an additional amount of vegetable fat other than cocoa butter may, therefore, be legally denominated as “chocolate”, provided that it bears a statement on the label in that regard.
Court Injunctions in Germany temporarily prohibit the sale of certain Dubai chocolate
There are already Court decisions regarding Dubai chocolate. According to the Cologne Regional Court’s (Landgericht Köln) decision of 13 January 2025 (case 33 O 544/24), a product may only be called Dubai chocolate or similar in Germany if it is manufactured in Dubai or has some other geographical connection to Dubai. The Court issued an injunction against the retailer Aldi Süd, temporarily prohibiting the sale. Since December 2024, Aldi Süd had offered ‘Alyan Dubai Homemade Chocolate’ in its stores, but the chocolate is produced in Türkiye, as indicated on the back of the pack. Section 127(1) of the German Act on the Protection of Trade Marks and other Signs (hereinafter, Trade Mark Act) provides that “Indications of geographical origin may not be used in trade for goods or services which do not originate from the place, area, territory or country which is designated by the indication of geographical origin if it is likely to mislead concerning the geographical origin if such names, indications or signs for goods or services of different origin are used”.
Under Section 128(1) of the Trade Mark Act, any person who, in trade, uses names, indications or signs contrary to Section 127, may be sued by persons entitled to assert claims in accordance with Section 8 (3) of the Act Against Unfair Competition for injunctive relief in the event of the risk of recurrent infringement. In the Court’s view, the reference to Türkiye on the back of the packaging is not sufficient. Because of the designation, there is a risk that consumers would be misled if they were to assume “that the product was actually manufactured in Dubai and imported into Germany”. The same Court had already ruled in this way in two other recent cases issuing preliminary injunctions prohibiting two companies from marketing their products, which is neither manufactured in Dubai, nor has any other geographical connection to Dubai, as Dubai Chocolate. In these cases, the Court found that the “product design misleads customers”. In the specific cases, the packaging provided phrases such as “Taste of Dubai”, “a touch of Dubai”, or “this chocolate brings the magic of Dubai directly to your home”.
On 21 January 2025, in a case of chocolate marketed by retailer Lidl, the Frankfurt Regional Court (case 2-06 O 18/25) ruled differently, notably finding that “the term Dubai chocolate has become a generic term”. Therefore, consumers would not necessarily assume that the individual ingredients of Lidl’s chocolate came from Dubai or that the product was manufactured there. The court also refers to the presentation of the chocolate and to the indicated designation of origin: “with chocolate, pistachios and kadayif from EU/non-EU”. The decisions are specific to the respective cases and do not have broader legal validity. For other products, the peculiarities of design and advertising will have to be carefully examined and it may well be that other courts will also assume that consumers understand Dubai chocolate to mean a certain type of chocolate with special ingredients or a method of production or recipe, rather than an indication of origin.
May Dubai chocolate be protected as a Geographical Indication (GI)?
In general terms, food products can have their designations of origin legally protected against competitors if certain criteria are met. An example is sparkling wine from the Champagne region, which may only be marketed as champagne if it actually originates from the region and adheres to certain production criteria. Protecting certain products through geographical indications (hereinafter, GIs) plays a major role in EU agricultural policy, as well as in ongoing international trade negotiations. The approach aims at supporting regional specialities, while, at the same time, enhancing and safeguarding their reputation.
In the EU, Regulation (EU) 2024/1143 of the European Parliament and of the Council on geographical indications for wine, spirit drinks and agricultural products, as well as traditional specialities guaranteed and optional quality terms for agricultural products designates two types of GIs: 1) Protected Designations of Origin (PDO), which apply to foodstuffs that are produced, processed and prepared in a given geographical area using recognised ‘know-how’; and 2) Protected Geographical Indications (PGI), which indicate a link with the area in at least one of the stages of production, processing or preparation. Names that have become generic (e.g., Dijon mustard) may not be registered as GIs in the EU. More than 30 third country GIs are registered in the EU. This includes Tequila (from Mexico), Darjeeling tea (India), Tørrfisk fra Lofoten fish (Norway), and ‘Rooibos’ tea (South Africa) (see Trade Perspectives, Issue No. 12 of 18 June 2021).
Other GIs are protected on the EU market through bilateral agreements between the EU and third countries. It would need to be assessed whether Dubai chocolate has special characteristics or ingredients that distinguish it from others and whether there is a link to Dubai. If so, the UAE could protect the name Dubai Chocolate domestically and then seek recognition from the EU. In this context, the Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement on Appellations of Origin and Geographical Distinctions protects appellations of origin for food and beverages worldwide. However, such legal protection is only available to the signatories of this agreement, and the UAE has not signed it.
Food contaminants in Dubai chocolate: Food safety concerns?
In December 2024 in Germany, the food control authority in Baden-Württemberg (Chemisches und Veterinäruntersuchungsamt, CVUA) carried out an examination of eight samples of imported Dubai chocolate, five from the UAE and three from Türkiye, and declared that “The first results are worrying”. Several issues were found, including “the use of undeclared allergens and the use of palm oil instead of cocoa butter in samples from the UAE”. The authorities detected significant amounts of the process contaminants 3-MCPD and glycidyl fatty acid esters in six of the eight samples examined. In only one of these samples, the levels were below the maximum permitted level set in Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 on maximum levels for certain contaminants in food and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006, but five of the samples from the same manufacturer in the UAE were assessed as “unsuitable for consumption and thus as ‘not safe’ due to an almost double exceedance of the maximum level for glycidyl fatty acid esters, which is a substance classified as probably carcinogenic”.
The CVUA notes that, “Presumably, these substances that are harmful to health got into the Dubai chocolate via contaminated palm oil” and that “Palm oil is particularly susceptible to the formation of 3-MCPD and glycidyl fatty acid esters”. Undeclared sesame seeds were detected in the samples from Türkiye, which poses a health risk to people with a sesame allergy. Almost all samples examined also contained synthetic colours and the authority states that “the use of synthetic colours achieves a more intensive colouring of the filling. It is obvious that this is intended to simulate a higher pistachio content”. In response to these results, the Ministry of Food, Rural Areas and Consumer Protection within Germany’s State of Baden-Württemberg announced a statewide special program to inspect such products to ensure compliance with food law.
In this context, via the EU’s Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (hereinafter, RASFF), on 20 December 2024, Germany notified the presence of “Aflatoxins and ochratoxin A in Dubai chocolate from United Arab Emirates” and, on 15 January 2025, notified the presence of “Glycidol in Dubai Chocolate with kunafa & pistachio from the United Arab Emirates”. On 3 January 2025, Sweden notified an “undeclared allergen (pistachio nuts) in FIX chocolate with Knafeh and Pistachio from the United Arab Emirates”.
Outlook
As evidenced above, the popular Dubai chocolate may give rise to various legal and food safety issues. Food business operators and retailers should diligently assess the emerging issues related to the indication of origin, the labelling of the ingredients, and ensure that products placed on the market are safe for human consumption.
