Champagne is made in Champagne

[Craig Camp]

Don't get me wrong. There is not problem debating the law surrounding this topic in all the detail you want - it is only comments about those who practice this law that we would like to leave to other forums.

[cdh]

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.

Yes. I plead guilty to one of your current accusations against me, though not one of the ad hominems (I am a reasonably pleasant guy and quality human being when my sense of legal overreaching is not riled). I am, indeed, as you accuse, morally blind in this situation. My moral sense does not extend to the realm of victimless crimes, so I believe that laws reaching into that sphere are misguided. Demonstrate to me any actual harm that arises from the current state of affairs, and I may change my mind. My perception of the situation looks like this-

There is a market segment of sophisticates who know where Champagne is from. They're sufficiently sophisticated, also, to know that a bottle of Korbel is not what they're looking for in the champagne section of their wine shop. Growers in Champagne lose no sales because these people are tricked into buying the wrong product. No lost sales == no harm.

There is also a market segment of unsophisticated people who aren't willing to pay the (increasingly exorbitant) prices that the growers in Champagne are asking, and still want fizzy wine with corks that go "pop!" for the celebratory events in their lives. They will buy by price, and will seldom front the cash demanded of them by the growers in Champagne. Whether the $10 bottle they buy says Champagne on it or not, the growers in Champagne are not losing a sale, since they cannot compete within the price range that this market segment is willing to spend. No lost sales == no harm.

Before accusations of further moral blindness are pointed at me, I'll also admit up front that I also have trouble with the concept of intangible damage to reputation through association with tarnishingly inferior products... so if that is all you're up in arms about, we'll have to agree to disagree. I concede that such a position has recently been deemed reasonable by the U.S. Congress insofar as they've codified a law on dilution of famous brands... but were I in congress I'd not have voted for it.

Edited January 7, 2004 by cdh (log)

[cdh]

Now that I think a little more about it, I'm close to convicing myself that if the Champagne growers actually do vociferously pursue this particular fight, they may be doing themselves more harm than good.

In the popular mentality, the celebratory, sexy, fun drink is champagne. For a lot of people, even those who don't like it very much, fizzy wine is what gets busted out when they want to mark a milestone. If champagne becomes associated with histrionic brow-beating of the sort evidenced here recently, they'll soon find their reputation for light-hearted fun going down the tubes, and people might decide to mark their milestones with other beverages or activities that seem more fun to them.

Just a thought... what say you all?

[Pan]

Chris, isn't publicity generally a good thing? If so, why would vociferous objections create trouble?

[cdh]

My thinking is that champagne's cachet is a subconscious reaction... it is not reasoned, and is more akin to a cultural reflex action.

If they succeed in getting most people to analyze what is champagne, people might just keep on thinking and realize that they don't like it much... even if what they don't like is the cheap fizzy wine not from France (though I'm not much of a fan of the NV bottlings of a lot of the French houses too.)

When a reflex action comes under self-conscious scrutiny, it is liable to be judged and possibly rethought, whereas if it remained a simple reflex, then it is safe from such scrutiny. As a personal example, think about the sounds of certain words... they begin to sound sort of absurd when I think about them... but when I need to convey a message, I reflexively use them without thought about the absurdity of their sound.

By pushing a whole national market to think hard about fizzy wine, they're taking the chance of undoing the magic of the reflex action they're benefitting from.

Edited January 7, 2004 by cdh (log)

[Pan]

Maybe, but the whole things seems fuzzy enough that if I were in their position, I'd continue to argue vociferously.

[Raoul Duke]

Maybe the barristers should move over to the Martha Stewart forum.

[cdh]

Maybe the barristers should move over to the Martha Stewart forum.

Well, I will gladly set aside reasoning (legal or otherwise) and continue the argument purely ad hominem, if the audience so desires. Though, Mr. Duke, as your attorney, I'd strongly advise that you open my briefcase and drink the three magnums of champagne and then...

Edited January 7, 2004 by cdh (log)

[Pan]

Maybe the barristers should move over to the Martha Stewart forum.

Well, I will gladly set aside reasoning (legal or otherwise) and continue the argument purely ad hominem, if the audience so desires.

[Scott]

Now that I think a little more about it, I'm close to convicing myself that if the Champagne growers actually do vociferously pursue this particular fight, they may be doing themselves more harm than good.

Geez,

you're really starting to talk tosh now.

1. you're guilty of a staggering lack of vision on how brands are built and a fundamental misunderstanding of the battle to win the middle ground of consumers who do not sit on your fictious polar ends.

2. I will repeat, you don't seem to get this, these bans are in place in nearly every other western country on earth. understand? this has done them no harm.

[balex]

Now that I think a little more about it, I'm close to convicing myself that if the Champagne growers actually do vociferously pursue this particular fight, they may be doing themselves more harm than good.

In the popular mentality, the celebratory, sexy, fun drink is champagne. For a lot of people, even those who don't like it very much, fizzy wine is what gets busted out when they want to mark a milestone. If champagne becomes associated with histrionic brow-beating of the sort evidenced here recently, they'll soon find their reputation for light-hearted fun going down the tubes, and people might decide to mark their milestones with other beverages or activities that seem more fun to them.

Just a thought... what say you all?

So your argument is that people will say -- Boy, those Champagne guys are harshing my mellow by harrassing that poor Californian wine maker; that's no fun -- I'll buy some beer instead.

Now confess -- you aren't 100% serious, are you?

[Boris_A]

that I also have trouble with the concept of intangible damage to reputation ...

The building of a reputation is a product of investments in quality and communication, not a byproduct of regulation. A designator of origin does not create value per se. Such investments in reputation deserve to be protected exactly like investments in patents or trademarks.

And if you grant protection in a specific country (based on the concept of AVAs for example), why should one refuse to grant this protection for foreign AVAs?

[ctgm]

For what it's worth, I've just been told that from 1st Feb, the Champenois are increasing their prices by about €1 (or for you unfortunate guys/dolls $1.25) a bottle. This is because of a small vintage!!

[Rieslingfan]

For what it's worth, I've just been told that from 1st Feb, the Champenois are increasing their prices by about €1 (or for you unfortunate guys/dolls $1.25) a bottle. This is because of a small vintage!!

That's hilarious. It's especially funny since there's tons of Champagne sitting at retail (and presumably in warehouses as well). The millenium buzz is gone (if there ever was one).

I can still buy several high quality prestige cuvees and vintage Champagnes from the 1990 vintage! Stacks of NV Champagne are on the floor of all my local retailers. My closest shop has a floor stack of '95 Dom. I spoke with their manager yesterday & he sold exactly 2 bottles of his 30 cases over the holidays.

There's enough Champagne in the pipeline to supply us for many more NYE celebrations.

The Champegnois do indeed need to work on the image of Champagne as a food wine.

[Scott]

Now confess -- you aren't 100% serious, are you?

You wouldn't think so.

[cdh]

that I also have trouble with the concept of intangible damage to reputation ...

The building of a reputation is a product of investments in quality and communication, not a byproduct of regulation. A designator of origin does not create value per se. Such investments in reputation deserve to be protected exactly like investments in patents or trademarks.

And if you grant protection in a specific country (based on the concept of AVAs for example), why should one refuse to grant this protection for foreign AVAs?

And every house in Champagne that invests in quality and communication has a name... in fact it is their Trademark. It is protected. If I were to start a winiery and start making fizzy wine and called it Bollinger, I'd be counterfeiting their trademark. The law already covers this on the producer level. Why does it need to expand to cover the regional level too?

Lots of people seem to be harping on the AVA idea... hate to burst your bubble, but nobody pays attention to them in the US market. There are plenty of non AVA wines that are of quality camparable to AVA wines. People I know do not operate on the assumption that the AVA is an elite club that winemakers strive to get into, and that membership in the AVA is a guarantee of a highest quality product.

Scott- to put it in as simple terms as possible (blind idiot that I am): "Everybody else is doing it" is not a reason to do something. Just because the EU has decided to humor France's demands that wine law everywhere within the union look like french law is no reason for the rest of the world to do so. Bandwagonism is both poor rhetoric and poor logic... but maybe only in this blind idiot's view.

Edited January 8, 2004 by cdh (log)

[Craig Camp]

Once again the comments are headed towards the personal. Please don't go down that road. The topic is too interesting to screw it up.

[cdh]

So your argument is that people will say -- Boy, those Champagne guys are harshing my mellow  by harrassing that poor Californian wine maker; that's no fun -- I'll buy some beer instead.

Now confess -- you aren't 100% serious, are you?

I was more thinking of running into somebody in a wine shop while shopping for champagne and being on the receiving end of a rant about how evil Korbel or other such are. If shrill browbeaters are called into service in the cause, then the cause is already lost.

Re your beer crack... maybe I would rather a case of Rochefort 10 or Westvleteren 12 rather than a bottle of Cristal sometimes. If Champagne gets shrill and annoying, then I might just act on that impulse.

You see, I'm something of a contrarian by nature-- I'm inclined to question and pick apart any command given to me, and if it is unfounded, then to ignore it. If the Champegnoise are going to step out from behind their mystique and start issuing commands, then my questioning analytical nature will be engaged.

Champagne: You must only celebrate with real Champagne from Champagne! (preferably LVMH or Domecq owned products, since they're probably paying for this)

Me: Oh yeah? why? Maybe I'd like to celebrate with a Burgundy or maybe a Riesling... or that lovely Gewurz that smells like roses...

Champagne: No! You have always celebrated with fizzy wine, and it must be our fizzy wine.

Me: Now why did I always gravitate toward fizzy wines in celebratory situations? Hmmm... thoughtless reflex, I guess... and it goes so well with the caviar. No caviar today, so I don't need to limit myself to champagne. Now what will go well with those lamb chops...

Edited January 8, 2004 by cdh (log)

[Scott]

You see, I'm something of a contrarian by nature

If only that were all there were to it...

Chris,

you seem to be ignoring the basic points of this argument, and substituting your own deeply flawed, callow assumptions. Perhaps your comment explains why...

I think you believe you're calling it straight, but it sounds more and more like this is an industry you just don't understand - at all.

Champagne is a luxury product, the motivations of the consumer are much more complex than that for more everyday goods. It is not nearly as simplistic as you'd like to believe, in which a linear relationship exists between the everyday consumer, and a celebratory event that warrants a luxury product.

That you are wrong in this assumption, and so many more, shows the wholly unsatisfactory and insubstantial basis of your suggestion that this is a no harm crime.

You contradict yourself, over and over, at one point you agree that this is wrong but is a no harm crime, then you later suggest the EU laws are wrong and there is no basis for this protectionism. you also continue to neglect the hypocrisy of the AVA.

As it stands it's getting harder to take you seriously.

As an aside, do you actually practise in trademark law?

Edited January 8, 2004 by Scott (log)

[Scott]

Champagne: You must only celebrate with real Champagne from Champagne! (preferably LVMH or Domecq owned products, since they're probably paying for this)

Chris,

Now I see you don't actually expect to be taken seriously.

wish granted.

[cdh]

As it stands it's getting harder to take you seriously.

Please don't.

[balex]

So your argument is that people will say -- Boy, those Champagne guys are harshing my mellow  by harrassing that poor Californian wine maker; that's no fun -- I'll buy some beer instead.

Now confess -- you aren't 100% serious, are you?

I was more thinking of running into somebody in a wine shop while shopping for champagne and being on the receiving end of a rant about how evil Korbel or other such are. If shrill browbeaters are called into service in the cause, then the cause is already lost.

Re your beer crack... maybe I would rather a case of Rochefort 10 or Westvleteren 12 rather than a bottle of Cristal sometimes. If Champagne gets shrill and annoying, then I might just act on that impulse.

You see, I'm something of a contrarian by nature-- I'm inclined to question and pick apart any command given to me, and if it is unfounded, then to ignore it. If the Champegnoise are going to step out from behind their mystique and start issuing commands, then my questioning analytical nature will be engaged.

Champagne: You must only celebrate with real Champagne from Champagne! (preferably LVMH or Domecq owned products, since they're probably paying for this)

Me: Oh yeah? why? Maybe I'd like to celebrate with a Burgundy or maybe a Riesling... or that lovely Gewurz that smells like roses...

Champagne: No! You have always celebrated with fizzy wine, and it must be our fizzy wine.

Me: Now why did I always gravitate toward fizzy wines in celebratory situations? Hmmm... thoughtless reflex, I guess... and it goes so well with the caviar. No caviar today, so I don't need to limit myself to champagne. Now what will go well with those lamb chops...

1. Shrill browbeaters often are involved in worthwhile and ultimately successful endeavours -- women's suffrage for instance.

2. Questioning is good -- and I agree when someone tells me I have to do it, I often have the knee-jerk reaction to say "Why the hell should I?". That is a good thing. Sometimes there is a reason, in which case you should do it.

3. There is no reason at all why you can't celebrate with something else -- nor is Champagne a special occasion wine -- I drink it regularly (once a week maybe).

4. Beyond trademark protection, which you accept, surely you also accept basic principles of truthful labelling -- you can only call something beef if it comes from a cow. There is a genuine argument about whether and to what extent legal rpotection should e extended to particular geographical designators, and to what extent they have just become generic terms.

Can 'Cheddar' only be made in a certain region of England?

Extending protection clearly will have some consequences -- we could have a rational argument about this, if it's not too late. A good start would be

to admit that Champagne producers stand to benefit from extending these protections to the American market, just as they have benefitted from their protection in Europe. Conversely, they will lose financially if they fail to extend these rights. Please don't think that because I use the word 'right' I think it is necessarily a beneficial thing, nor that I think they should have these rights.

Whether consumers will benefit is a different issue, and though the Champagne producers may put this forward as championing consumer rights that is, as English lawyers say, complete bollocks.

[Boris_A]

but nobody pays attention to them in the US market.

Seroiusly, you want to tell me that everyone is allowed to sell wine labeled Napa in the USA, independently of the true source of the grapes?

guarantee of a highest quality product.

Neither is this a function of a classic trademark.

There are plenty of non AVA wines that are of quality camparable to AVA wines.

Same with sparklers. Feel free do offer best quality. But not under a misleading name.

french law is no reason that for the rest of the world to do so

When my assumption about the legal issue with Napa wines is correct, then "French law" is already implemented in the US, exept for the specific designators.

And thats the idea of WTO/TRIPS. As long as the designator is protected in one of the member countries, it is protected in all member countries (at least as there is no Champagne AVA in the US).

BTW, de facto, with wine and spirits, this is essentially undisputed in the WTO. Otherwise we would already have a complete chaos with wine names.

[Bux]

I find it weird that someone in California can make "California Champagne," but that no one in New York State can make "New York State California Champagne." Hell, we can't even make "NYS Napa Valley" wine. I would think the golden rule should apply. If a region can't respect the terrritorial designations of another region, it shouldn't expect anyone to respect its right to local names.

On the other hand, there's a clear reason California wine makers should be pushing for the elimination of "Champagne" designation on domestic wine labels. No region producing top quality wines should need to borrow appellations to sell their stuff. The use of names protected in the country of origin is an indication that we don't think of our product as ready to stand on its own in the international market. It's a signal we shouldn't want to send.

Not every one in Europe or even in France, celebrates with Champagne. I've been toasted with a host of other beverages including other sparkling wines. Champagne is the big export bubbly in France. There's plenty of Vouvray sparkling wine and Cremant in Alsace. Off hand I can't remember the local bubbly I ordered at Michel Bras as an aperatif, but it was not Champagne and it was proudly offered on the wine list at this three star restaurant that very much celebrates local traditions as well as luxury dining.

I tend not to lecture on the subject unless there's already a discussion, but I vote with my wallet. If two wines are equal and competitively priced, I opt for the one that shows respect for its competition and its prospective market.

[cdh]

Seroiusly, you want to tell me that everyone is allowed to sell wine labeled Napa in the USA, independently of the true source of the grapes?

Independently of the source of 15% (or 25%) of the grapes, yes.

Here's a summary of the AVA law for those interested.