Champagne is made in Champagne

[Boris_A]

"passing off" one product as another thereby fooling the consumer, and "deceptively misdescribing" a product so the consumer thinks it is something it isn't. 

This are two sides of the same coin.

If I develop and regulate (at a place of a certain origin, AOC) high quality standards at high costs for the producer, and other producers from anywhere are using this quality name, then of course the producer of the real stuff is damaged as well.

> They're obligated to do so under trademark law

When I said "using", I meant using as a synonm in everyday language, not "using" as a brand itself.

[cdh]

well... "passing off" is generally used in the context of counterfeiting... In a sentence: "That shop was passing off cheap chinatown imitations of LV bags as the real thing."

"deceptively misdescribe" is broader... no counterfeiting necessary. "The Handmade rugs were actually machine woven." or "That Grape Juice was apple juice and artificial flavorings."

An owner condoning or encouraging the use of a proprietary mark in a generic context is evidence in support of cancellation of that owner's mark. You can't have it both ways... no trademarks allowed for generic words, even if you can capitalize on becoming generic. A workable strategy in this context might be to develop marks in tandem, and sacrifice one of them to genericide so as to be able to say, for example, "We're 3M, we put the scotch in your tape, so please buy ours."

Edited January 5, 2004 by cdh (log)

[Scott]

From a legal point of view, Scott's association of mislabeling with theft actually goes beyond the (already broad) reach of the law. Theft analogies are rampant in talk about patent and copyright infringement, where there are real proprietary interests.

Trademark law comes at the problem of intellectual property from a different angle-- it has historically been essentially about consumer protection, rather than brand protection for its own sake. The standards by which trademark violations are judged are all about the consumer's perceptions-- "passing off" one product as another thereby fooling the consumer, and "deceptively misdescribing" a product so the consumer thinks it is something it isn't. Is affixing the word "champagne" to a bottle of clearly labelled California wine either of the above? An analysis like Katherine's comes into play here, as actual linguistic usage is evidence of what consumers think when a description is used. It is the consumer's perceptions that are being protected, not the wishful desires of any particular user of a mark.

[Scott]

well... "passing off" is generally used in the context of counterfeiting... In a sentence: "That shop was passing off cheap chinatown imitations of LV bags as the real thing."

given the low end consumers these sparkling wines might be pitched at, isn't this exactly what is taking place???

[Pan]

I guess I'm also going to pile on Katherine a bit.

I do understand your point about language, but to me, that addresses only how people use words when they speak, or write informally. Commercial speech is something else, and in commercial speech, a lack of specificity is a problem for consumers, while a deliberate attempt to mislead is an attempt to commit fraud. Your point about Kleenex is instructive because any other manufacturer of nose-wipes would have an immediate lawsuit on its hands if it said on the package "makers of the best kleenex" instead of "compare our product to Kleenex." It's well-recognized that each region of Europe makes particular types of wine. It's somewhat of an anomaly of history that the U.S. is not a signatory to the treaty which recognizes that, and I think it would be to the advantage of both honorable wine producers and sellers and the public at large if the U.S. did sign and ratify that treaty.

[cdh]

Scott--

I'll ignore the uncivil snipe at the amoral legalism of myself and my fellows in the profession.

I'll not, however, accept your premise of "presumed associated quality" without some variety of evidence for it. I'd wager that if a scientific poll was done of a random cross section of the American populace, you'd find that people believe that champagne means sparkling wine. If so, then champagne is a generic in the minds of the consuming public. (I'd also bet that a majority of them don't think they like Champagne, as a result of the low end plonk marketed at them under the name... this would be actionable trademark dilution, but for the fact that champagne is generic and can't be a mark in the first place absent a special law enacted to make it one.) I'd also make a snipe back at you about perceiving quality that just isn't there (in a majority of the big houses' recent NV bottlings).

I also don't accept your premise about the land that originated the style holding the exclusive right to use the name... at least not in America. Look at the architypal American booze-- Bourbon whiskey... named after Bourbon County Kentucky. Not a drop of it made there today... a dry county, I believe, as a matter of fact. Is every maker of bourbon today trading unfairly in derogation of the rights of Bourbon County? I'd say not. They're paying homage and making whiskey in the style of its origination point. There is good Bourbon, there is bad Bourbon, but Bourbon is a style descriptor, not a unique identifier of origin.

If I accepted your premises, I could take them one step further. Only the grapes that grow on MY particular hillside are Pinot Noir. I don't care that those grapes on the plain below are genetically identical to my grapes. It is the terroir that makes them special. Those guys can grow them all they want, but they can't call their grapes Pinot Noir. They might make really bad wines with them, and that would tarnish all the time my ancestors and I spent in breeding them. You can grow em, just get another name.

You're infusing quite a lot of moral indignation into this discussion without giving any rigorous explanation of why the egregiously immoral acts happen to be as wrong as you claim they are.

Edited January 5, 2004 by cdh (log)

[clifford]

Wow! With each passing day I am more amazed at the education level and passion displayed here on egullet.

I guess it's up to me to dumb down the discussion a bit with my two-cents:

I have never purchased a bottle of sparkling wine from CA that was labeled Champagne. I have never even seen it advertised, as such. I thought (maybe I am wrong) that it was against the law to put the words Champagne on the label.

That being said, when my Mom comes over for Christmas Brunch, she always brings the "Champagne". I take her bottle of Korbel with it's nifty white plastic screw cork and place it in the 'fridge, right next to my '95 Veuve Clicquot Brut Rose.

No matter how much money the French (RIGHTLY) spend on defending the viticultural region of Champagne, they would do themselves a far greater service by attempting to educate the general public that Champagne is great to drink on days other than Christmas, December 31st, and your wedding.

[Pan]

That's a great point, Clifford.

[cdh]

That's a great point, Clifford.

Hear, hear!

[Scott]

Scott--

I'll ignore the uncivil snipe at the amoral legalism of myself and my fellows in the profession.

I'll not, however, accept your premise of "presumed associated quality" without some variety of evidence for it. I'd wager that if a scientific poll was done of a random cross section of the American populace, you'd find that people believe that champagne means sparkling wine. If so, then champagne is a generic in the minds of the consuming public. (I'd also bet that a majority of them don't think they like Champagne, as a result of the low end plonk marketed at them under the name... this would be actionable trademark dilution, but for the fact that champagne is generic and can't be a mark in the first place absent a special law enacted to make it one.) I'd also make a snipe back at you about perceiving quality that just isn't there (in a majority of the big houses' recent NV bottlings).

I also don't accept your premise about the land that originated the style holding the exclusive right to use the name... at least not in America. Look at the architypal American booze-- Bourbon whiskey... named after Bourbon County Kentucky. Not a drop of it made there today... a dry county, I believe, as a matter of fact. Is every maker of bourbon today trading unfairly in derogation of the rights of Bourbon County? I'd say not. They're paying homage and making whiskey in the style of its origination point. There is good Bourbon, there is bad Bourbon, but Bourbon is a style descriptor, not a unique identifier of origin.

If I accepted your premises, I could take them one step further. Only the grapes that grow on MY particular hillside are Pinot Noir. I don't care that those grapes on the plain below are genetically identical to my grapes. It is the terroir that makes them special. Those guys can grow them all they want, but they can't call their grapes Pinot Noir. They might make really bad wines with them, and that would tarnish all the time my ancestors and I spent in breeding them. You can grow em, just get another name.

You're infusing quite a lot of moral indignation into this discussion without giving any rigorous explanation of why the egregiously immoral acts happen to be as wrong as you claim they are.

Chris - see point 1

yes, many people do think of Champagne being sparkling wine - that is mine, and the Champenpoise's point. It's an amoral obfuscation by the unprincipled, if you wish to take it as a reason to remain static.

If I accepted your premises, I could take them one step further.  Only the grapes that grow on MY particular hillside are Pinot Noir.  I don't care that those grapes on the plain below are genetically identical to my grapes.  It is the terroir that makes them special.

Geez Chris, how do you take some agreed common ground, and twist it suit yourself - is it your profession again? or is it that you don't really appreciate or understand wine?

The grapes used are not in question, the right to assert it's origin is.

How does this illustrate your point? I notice you have not addressed my point about domestic origins, or the legal standard point of AVA's?

Should a central valley producer be allowed to assert that his sparkling wine comes from Anderson Valley or his cabernet from Calistoga - IF IT DOES NOT?

[Scott]

No matter how much money the French (RIGHTLY) spend on defending the viticultural region of Champagne, they would do themselves a far greater service by attempting to educate the general public that Champagne is great to drink on days other than Christmas, December 31st, and your wedding.

Clifford,

on many levels I do agree with you, and I am glad to see you acknowledge that this misrepresentation is wrong.

Interestingly in UK and in France, Champagne is an everyday drink. If you can't protect your product's unique identifying characteristics, why bother to promote it until the generic barnicles are removed from the hull.

[Boris_A]

It's somewhat of an anomaly of history that the U.S. is not a signatory to the treaty which recognizes that, and I think it would be to the advantage of both honorable wine producers and sellers and the public at large if the U.S. did sign and ratify that treaty.

Just as you're not allowed to sell beef in Europe labelled as "US-Beef" just because it's cut like a T-Bone. Or selling fruity, concentrated, oaky Cabernet Sauvignon as "Napa", just because these type of wine is "commonly" associated with real Napa Cabernet. And so on ad nauseam.

"Identifyer of origin" (or whatever it's called legally) and "Trademark" is a similar, but not identical legal concept, BTW.

Those guys can grow them all they want, but they can't call their grapes Pinot Noir.

Pinot Noir is not a trademark, not a patent and not an identifyer of origin and no intellectual property. I've no idea what you are trying to demonstrate with this example.

by attempting to educate the general public that Champagne is great to drink on days other than Christmas, December 31st, and your wedding.

What kind of Champagne, actually?

It's not ours to advice the Champagne producer how to educate the public, but anyway, before they encourage people drinking Champagne they should make sure that people know what's Champagne. Elementary, Dr. Watson!

Encouraging generic usage is a sure fire way to kill a mark.

I don't see the Champagne producers encouraging the generic usage.

But still, Champagne seems to be a increasingly successfull "brand/mark".

Just to give you an idea: 40-50% of every $ spent in the world for imported wine id for French wine. And Champagne counts for roughly 35% here. So around 15% of s money spent for imported wine in the world is for Champagne.

They can't be that wrong with their strategy, I think.

[Craig Camp]

Scott - no more lawyer comments please - this is the wine forum and any continuation of this aspect of the debate will not be acceptable from you, cdh and anyone else.

Back to wine only commentary please.

[vserna]

Sparklers from other countries -- I'm still trying to find a Spanish one that will blow me away. 

Allow me one question, Brad: How much did you pay for those Spanish sparklers (the name is 'cava', BTW)? $8? $10? It's hard to find 'blow-away' quality at bargain basement prices. My point: most of the cavas you'll see around the international markets, including the US, are the basic mass-produced cuvées that give reasonable bubbles at a fraction of the price of NV champagne, which is where Spain has been a big hit internationally (in number of bottles, there's as much cava as champagne around now). If you want something that will more fairly compare to better quality fizz in France or Italy, you need to search a bit more and go a bit higher. You'll find a wine like Gramona Argent Brut Reserva 1998 (price in the European Union: around 20 euros) rather intriguing. Not that I am the world's greatest fan of cava, but it's my experience that most people outside Spain who pooh-pooh it actually only know Freixenet Cordón Negro (from the same people who make Gloria Perrer, BTW) and the like... And it's a bit unfair.

Our most recent tasting of cavas al www.elmundovino.com (in Spanish):

http://elmundovino.elmundo.es/elmundovino/...tml?tasting=189

[Boris_A]

Freixenet Cordón Negro

I must concede that my impression of Cava is persistently damaged by these three words since my student days.

Thanks for pointing to quality Cavas. I'm going to sample some of the labels.

Craig: forgive!

[Craig Camp]

Freixenet Cordón Negro

I must concede that my impression of Cava is persistently damaged by these three words since my student days.

Thanks for pointing to quality Cavas. I'm going to sample some of the labels.

Craig: forgive!

I'm quite a fan of top quality Cava. It has its own style and character. The mass brands have not of that - just like mass brands everywhere.

[balex]

Has anyone here tried the top cuvees of Franciacorta -- e.g. Ca del Bosco cuvee Annamaria Clementi ? And can compare them to good vitage champagne?

I have only had the iinferior ones which are good (and IMO as good as Champagne NV).

[cdh]

Should a central valley producer be allowed to assert that his sparkling wine comes from Anderson Valley or his cabernet from Calistoga - IF IT DOES NOT?

No, it should not. I'm not standing here arguing that misrepresentations are right or proper. Calistoga and Anderson Valley have not developed a separate, geographically independent meaning in the minds of most consumers. Placing either name on a bottle is a clear indication of origin, and that is the only meaning imputed to those words placed on a bottle.

Champagne has over time acquired a whole different meaning in the context of a bottle. While the champagnoise weren't paying attention, their geographical designator got hijacked into the popular mind with an erroneous definition attached. I see no malice in the process that led to the situation... The djinn is out of Champagne's bottle already, and stuffing it back in is a difficult and onerous process. One I don't think will ever succeed.

I'm all for precision, and bottles should identify their origin... if one didn't I'd be unlikely to buy it. If a bottle labelled champagne didn't tell me it was from Rheims, or Ay or Bouzy or elsewhere in the AOC, I'd not assume it was from there... I'd assume it was sparking plonk, and probably not buy it. I don't see the need for the law to reach in here and regulate, when the market could handle it on its own.

Edited January 6, 2004 by cdh (log)

[Scott]

I see no malice in the process that led to the situation... The djinn is out of Champagne's bottle already, and stuffing it back in is a difficult and onerous process. One I don't think will ever succeed.

Ok Chris,

let's get back on topic, and simply state:

1. no malice - so?

2. difficulties - it's been done successfully everywhere else. The US stands alone here, so to suggest it's too hard is disingenuous, especially when considering the AVA.

The AVA has an even more tenuous to right to geographical designation, as I'm sure these distinctions have not seeped into the public conscious yet.

I appreciate you see this a pro point, I see entirely the opposite.

ergo: that the less 'people' understand these distinctions, the less need there is for specificity, and possibly in turn less right to it, after all if there not understood who are you protecting? Those areas, in this case, champagne, that do have an association, have far more need to be protected. Yes, it might be more difficult, but isn't that the point - that there is a need to protect the rights of their product?

I don't see any correlation between the inherent difficulties in doing so, and the right to assert place of origin in the first instance.

Besides, perhaps you, or somebody else can answer why the US can't do this when:

- Europe, Asia and the Australasia's have managed it.

- The very same thing has been created (AVA) to protect domestic rights of US producers.

I see this as a pragmatic apologists view of "I'm all right, stuff you".

[cdh]

Those areas, in this case, champagne, that do have an association, have far more need to be protected.  Yes, it might be more difficult, but isn't that the point - that there is a need to protect the rights of their product?

Products have rights? Where do these rights spring from? Sure there are some zany statutes giving producers of stuff a legal right to defend their products from some sorts of disparagement, i.e. the veggie libel statute in Texas that caught up Oprah Winfrey a few years ago. If I recall correctly (and I've not bothered to do the research), that law was tossed on US Constitutional grounds... Something about peoples rights trumping products' rights... first amendment in this case.

There is obviously no statutory right that Champagne has to protection in the American legal system... it certainly may have one in France under the AOC laws, but French laws do not apply in america, nor do they generate any sorts of "rights". The AOC law imposes a duty upon the growers in a region to follow certain procedures if they desire to label their wine as coming from that particular place. I don't see the flip-side of this duty as creating a universal right.

Consumers have rights-- not to be misled or lied to. What constitutes misleading depends on how a message will be interpreted by a reasonable consumer. Saying "This is Champagne" to an American consumer will not (at present... and it may change over time) bring to mind the necessary conclusion that the product in the bottle began its life 90 miles east of Paris. When (or if) American consumers come to the point of sophistication that they do make that conclusion when a bottle says champagne, and the law that allows plonk growers in California to call their plonk champagne is still on the books, then I'd get somewhere near as miffed as you are right now. Not 'til then.

Edited January 6, 2004 by cdh (log)

[Brad Ballinger]

Has anyone here tried the top cuvees of Franciacorta -- e.g. Ca del Bosco cuvee Annamaria Clementi ? And can compare them to good vitage champagne?

I have only had the iinferior ones which are good (and IMO as good as Champagne NV).

I have not tried that particular wine. But I have had a few of the wines from Cavelleri, and their upper tier ones are better than many run of the mill NV Champagne wines -- and loads better than Bellavista. Outside of the Franciacorta DOC, I also like Bruno Giacosa's vintage spumanti (Piemonte), Giulio Ferrari's vintage spumatni (Trentino), and I recently had a stunning spumante from Valentino (Piemonte).

[vserna]

Has anyone here tried the top cuvees of Franciacorta -- e.g. Ca del Bosco cuvee Annamaria Clementi ? And can compare them to good vitage champagne?

I have. I'd say it has a fuller style, but lots of class, and deserves to be considered alongside top-notch vintage champagne. Maurizio Zanella makes great wines...

[caroline]

Thanks to all, and particularly CDH, for clarifying the issues about trademarks, locality, etc. Since so much of the discussion concerns Europe and the US, I thought it might be worth throwing in something about the Argentine situation. I'm reporting from an editorial in the magazine of Club del Vino, one of the best places to try wines in Buenos Aires.

Here's their line (with apologies if I've got it wrong). Chile is not a great producer of sparkling wine. Argentina is. Much of it is produced (nice twist) by French firms in the province of Mendoza. Now the Spanish firms Codorniú and Freixenet have joined them.

Now all this can happily be sold to local markets. Champagne as it is happily called appears to be very popular in Argentina particularly with dessert.

But the EU is making agreements with non EU export markets to prevent import of wines using names such as champagne. For example, they are, according to this, subsidising South African wine producers with the proviso that SAfrica not import (say) Argentine sparkling wines called champagne.

I have to admit that at this point my head begins to spin at the machinations of the international beverage/wine companies.

I'd be grateful for anyone who can guide me through this laberinth,

Rachel

[Scott]

Those areas, in this case, champagne, that do have an association, have far more need to be protected.  Yes, it might be more difficult, but isn't that the point - that there is a need to protect the rights of their product?

Products have rights? Where do these rights spring from? Sure there are some zany statutes giving producers of stuff a legal right to defend their products from some sorts of disparagement, i.e. the veggie libel statute in Texas that caught up Oprah Winfrey a few years ago. If I recall correctly (and I've not bothered to do the research), that law was tossed on US Constitutional grounds... Something about peoples rights trumping products' rights... first amendment in this case.

There is obviously no statutory right that Champagne has to protection in the American legal system... it certainly may have one in France under the AOC laws, but French laws do not apply in america, nor do they generate any sorts of "rights". The AOC law imposes a duty upon the growers in a region to follow certain procedures if they desire to label their wine as coming from that particular place. I don't see the flip-side of this duty as creating a universal right.

Consumers have rights-- not to be misled or lied to. What constitutes misleading depends on how a message will be interpreted by a reasonable consumer. Saying "This is Champagne" to an American consumer will not (at present... and it may change over time) bring to mind the necessary conclusion that the product in the bottle began its life 90 miles east of Paris. When (or if) American consumers come to the point of sophistication that they do make that conclusion when a bottle says champagne, and the law that allows plonk growers in California to call their plonk champagne is still on the books, then I'd get somewhere near as miffed as you are right now. Not 'til then.

Chris,

once again you go off on some meaningless tangent. We all know there is no statutory control in the US - there should be. That's been the whole point, surely you can see that?

Then again, I suspect you can't , which perhaps tells me all I need to know about you.

[Boris_A]

I'd be grateful for anyone who can guide me through this laberinth

To make it short and before Craig can step in again:

Google with WTO (World Trade Organization) and TRIPS (Agreement on Trade Issues Regarding Intellectual Property Rights). By adding "Champagne", you'll find stuff for this particular issue. Of peculiar interest are documents when adding "Basmati" (rice from India).

Anyway, you will know why there are no US bottles with the label "Champagne" anymore despite "US law allowing it". (Hint: the US are a WTO member).

The basic concept is easy to understand. For deeper discussion, you need an expert for international trade law and agreements.