I was scared at first (MBA-speak!), but for Ernst and Young that was fairly comprehensible. ' What is wrong with this sentence: "The grape varieties employed in its production have a low qualitative potential (Thomas seedless, hybrids, Chenin Blanc, Ugni Blanc)" :)
reputation" if they labeled their own California wine as "California Champagne"?
Well, sorta. They are stealing a word (which is used pretty much like a trademark would be) and making it mean something else, to the detriment of champagne producers from Champagne.
Would you say the same about Upstart Toys marketing an "Upstart Yoyo"?
Jose
OK, in the USA we have trademark laws that the holder of the trademark has to protect or they lose that trademark.
Here are examples of some that have been challanged because they started at somepoint to appear to be Generic and not forced:
Kleenex is a brand of tissue but people would say, pass a Kleenex. Kleenex has a responsibility to keep that trademark and keep their brand from decling and becoming Generic.
Another big was Band-Aid vs Adhesive Bandage.
Companies have to defend their trademark brands or lose them if challange during a time period usually just a few years.
The only reason that Champaigne was not an issue years ago, is we did not sign a treaty cause we are in Prohibition so we can get away without it legally and the were able to use Champaigne on the label for Domestic product.
That being said, they deserve the respect of at least history trademark laws for our domestic goods.
No one is saying they cannot make the product with the same method, its not a patented process, but it is an non recognized International Trademark naming.
I simply think this is a cultural issue since so much of Europe is Geographically based for their naming.
Also, descriptive trademarks are the hardest to defend. ie, chocholate with caramel and peanuts is a hard trademark to defend than say, Snickers Candy Bar is.
End of story
Richard wrote on Mon, 14 Jan 2008 17:31:08 -0500:
RN> Companies have to defend their trademark brands or lose RN> them if challange during a time period usually just a few RN> years.
Fine, I would acknowledge that "Domaine Chandon" is a trade name but not "Champagne"! I like Cheddar cheese but high quality varieties are made around the world!
James Silverton Potomac, Maryland
E-mail, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
I think you are missing my point. And I am not trying to argumentative.
Champaigne is in essence the trademark name. It defines something that did not exist before it was created there.
But it is a geography.
Years ago I represented a brand of a beverage called Sunny Delight. It was from Mt. Dora Florida. We trademarked Sunny Delight, we also trademarked the name Florida Citrus Punch. The later is a descriptive trademark. For I beleive 3 years we were an unknown brand but we did advertise it. We went from a circle TM to a circle R with meant we are permanant and mostly beyond contestability. Sunny Delight was not much of an issue because it was not descriptive and that would have survived a challange in court had one emerged. We even went further though. Stonger than a trademark was a registered propietary bottle design. Well along came a brand that copied our name of "Florida Citrus Punch" and they copied our bottle design to look like us. It was Bordens "Florida Citrus Punch". We skipped asking for them to please stop selling when we found their product and called for an emergency hearing. They laughed but they were off the shelf within 24 hours of our hearing in Orange County Florida. Plus there were financial remunerations.
I do think that there are brand names but also geographical names that should be protected. Country of origin labeling is becoming more and more prevalent everywhere. In the USA there are only certain items that are required to have it. But if you are selling a product in another country you have to adhere to their labeling laws.
Like I said, selling Canada was a challange for us cause their labeling laws are much different. And as was statated by someone else they would receive the Andre but their laws support the Euro labeling that Champaigne is from France. Andre probably just sent the wrong label there would be my guess.
Problem is that we (in USA) don't think of a trademark as a geographical district but they do in Europe. The WTO supported the opposite in your favor however which in my opinion was a bad ruling. But I guess as this goes, Andre would have to go against the WTO to see if they can have their money reimbursed. My guess is Andre will not go that far.
OK, another shot.
Kimberly Clark owns Kleenex brand Kleenex tissues and they have spend over $3 Billion Dollar advertising and promoting the Kleenex brand name.
To avoid allowing Kleenex to be synonomous with tissue, therefore able to lose their trademark for all practical reasons, then they have lost all they have done after creating themselves in the 1920s. Shareholder value down the drain. Money to invest in new concepts, gone.
I guess to some degree I think what you are saying is its already happened. When people think of Champaigne here in USA then they don't think of France they think of bubbles.
In my opinion not from a legal perspective I think its wrong to copy the name. However the WTO was on your side cause that was how they did rule a few years back..like in last 5 years.
I feel cheated when I see San Marsano tomatoes from Canada and Parma Ham from Canada. They are good products but I do not buy them when I see them anymore.
Yesterday I was listening to a discussion about the fact that California, Arizona, Mexico and other Central American countries have morphed into a regional labor market. The laborers and employers see it that way but the rest of the country is having problems with the concept.
Richard wrote on Tue, 15 Jan 2008 08:34:14 -0500:
RN> Kimberly Clark owns Kleenex brand Kleenex tissues and they RN> have spend over $3 Billion Dollar advertising and promoting RN> the Kleenex brand name.
RN> To avoid allowing Kleenex to be synonomous with tissue, RN> therefore able to lose their trademark for all practical RN> reasons, then they have lost all they have done after RN> creating themselves in the 1920s. Shareholder value down RN> the drain. Money to invest in new concepts, gone.
RN> I guess to some degree I think what you are saying is its RN> already happened. When people think of Champaigne here in RN> USA then they don't think of France they think of bubbles.
RN> In my opinion not from a legal perspective I think its RN> wrong to copy the name. However the WTO was on your side RN> cause that was how they did rule a few years back..like in RN> last 5 years.
RN> I feel cheated when I see San Marsano tomatoes from Canada RN> and Parma Ham from Canada. They are good products but I do RN> not buy them when I see them anymore.
RN> If I ever see California oranges from Martinique I will not RN> buy either :-) "
I think we have reached an impasse, neither of us persuading the other. I do not share your aversion to San Marsano tomatoes from Canada tho' I certainly agree with you that specific trade names like "Kleenex" or, my example, "Domaine Chandon" are property.
James Silverton Potomac, Maryland
E-mail, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
I have to agree with Richard's (or somebody's!) point that protecting the name "Champagne" affords some protection to the consumer. Hypothetically, let's say that future Champagne takes a major downturn in quality. Before long, fans of Champagne will start to get disillusioned; the name "Champagne" will become something to AVOID, not SEEK OUT. That being the case, the onus is on Champagne's producers to keep their eye on the ball.
Dan-O
DrinksForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.