Wall Street protesters: We're in for the long haul

[Jacob]

I don't know Malthus. It seems fair that if you accept that brand names and other IP should be legally protected then popularity of the word is jot a good argument against a well established brand.

I mean, there are places where the word "Coke" means "any soda water". I don't think that makes it reasonable for Coca Cola To lose the trademark, even if they could put "cola manufactured by Coca Cola" on the label. Same goes for Band Aid, Tylenol and other well known brands.

The California sparkling wine manufacturers want to call their product champagne to get a free ride on the prestige of the wines of the Champagne region. I don't think the fact that champagne wines have a longer pedigree and greater fame than many oth brands is an argument against protecting their trademark.

[DontSayBanana]

  Actually, I would say that even more expensive wines rarely taste great, and are very inconsistent.  I have a bottle in my fridge right now, and I swear that it tasted very differently a month ago than it does now.

Red, white or blush?  Most likely culprit bolded, BTW.

[DGuller]

  Actually, I would say that even more expensive wines rarely taste great, and are very inconsistent.  I have a bottle in my fridge right now, and I swear that it tasted very differently a month ago than it does now.

Red, white or blush?  Most likely culprit bolded, BTW.

Is there a big difference between different colors of wine?

[Zoupa]

Do me a favour and never buy wine again. 

[Darth Wagtaros]

So.... how about them protesters?

[Duque de Bragança]

  Actually, I would say that even more expensive wines rarely taste great, and are very inconsistent.  I have a bottle in my fridge right now, and I swear that it tasted very differently a month ago than it does now.

Red, white or blush?  Most likely culprit bolded, BTW.

Is there a big difference between different colors of wine?

YES.

[Jacob]

Is there a big difference between different colors of wine?

Only if you don't mix them.

[Zoupa]

I do believe he was being facetious. Still. Stick to potato alcohol, DG.

[The Minsky Moment]

The flaw is of course that there is no particular reason why geographical origin has to be indicated by the very name of the product.

One big particular reason is that this particular product has a long history of designated itself that way, and therefore deviating from that practice would result in customer confusion.  Another reason is that geographic location does impact the product in discernible ways - i.e. there are real differences between Volnay and Pommard, and certainly differences as between them and Napa Pinot Noir.  These things matter when it comes, e.g. to getting wine for a particular meal, or in finding something that matches the tastes of the person you are going to drink the bottle with.  So refusing to protect the geographical designation does a real disservice to the customer, all in the name of allowing some producers to free ride on a famous name.

To my mind, something like "Champagne" is a name that has, like Xerox, outgrown its intellectual-property-protected origin, to indicate the very name of a thing. It would protect consumers more to have, printed on the label, "From grapes grown in the Champagne region of France" or "from grapes grown in the Napa Valley, California" rather than calling the first product "Champagne" and the second product "Sparkling Wine". 

This is a separate point - whether a particular name has become so associated with the general concept that it can't be entitled to protection anymore, just as with a trademark.  But even if true, the situation only arose in the Americas precisely because for a long time, the governments here refused to protect origin designations, so in effect the argument is somewhat perverse - that because we blocked the Champenoise from taking reasonable steps to protect their designation in the past, they should now be prevented from ever taking those steps in the future.

The fact is that most of the reputable California producers like Schramsberg and Iron Horse eschew the "Champagne" label, and it hasn't hurt their market presence at all.  I happen to think that there is a lot of good Cali sparklers being made, and there are some very good values, but the fact is that the style of these wines are quite different from Champagne due to very significant differences in climate.  As a consumer, I appreciate clear labelling on the front that informs me of origin using terms that I am familiar with based on their long history of usage.  I don't particularly care for seeing some novel bottle of "champagne" and have to search the fine print on the back label to figure out whether this is some new obscure champenoise grower I haven't heard of before or some sonoma-based operator playing games with names.

[Ed Anger]

So.... how about them protesters?

I'd run them down with cavalry.

[Malthus]

I don't know Malthus. It seems fair that if you accept that brand names and other IP should be legally protected then popularity of the word is jot a good argument against a well established brand.

I mean, there are places where the word "Coke" means "any soda water". I don't think that makes it reasonable for Coca Cola To lose the trademark, even if they could put "cola manufactured by Coca Cola" on the label. Same goes for Band Aid, Tylenol and other well known brands.

The California sparkling wine manufacturers want to call their product champagne to get a free ride on the prestige of the wines of the Champagne region. I don't think the fact that champagne wines have a longer pedigree and greater fame than many oth brands is an argument against protecting their trademark.

The problem is one of losing distinctiveness or "genericization". That is why you are not sued when you reach for a "kleenex" while making a "xerox" copy. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark

Note that protecting geographical origin is done in the EU through some special statutory process.

Since 2003, the European Union has actively sought to restrict the use of geographical indications by third parties outside the EU by enforcing laws regarding "protected designation of origin".[13] Although a geographical indication for specialty food or drink may be generic, it is not a trademark because it does not serve to identify exclusively a specific commercial enterprise and therefore cannot constitute a genericized trademark.

The extension of protection for geographical indications is somewhat controversial because a geographical indication may have been registered as a trademark elsewhere. For example, if "Parma Ham" were part of a trademark registered in Canada by a Canadian manufacturer, ham manufacturers actually located in Parma, Italy might be unable to use this name in Canada. Bordeaux wines, cheeses such as Roquefort, Parmesan, and Feta, Pisco liquor, and Scotch whisky are examples of geographical indications.

In the 1990s, the Parma consortium successfully sued the Asda supermarket chain to prevent it using the description "Parma ham" on prosciutto produced in Parma but sliced outside the Parma region.[14]

In short, it is not that they are asking for the same rights as IP holders. They are asking for, and getting, special rights not available to IP holders.

[PDH]

I thought the kind of straw one used to drink wine makes the taste different - have you tried different kinds DG?

MB says silly straws work the best, and I tend to agree.

[Ed Anger]

I thought the kind of straw one used to drink wine makes the taste different - have you tried different kinds DG?

MB says silly straws work the best, and I tend to agree.

Or a used giant pixie stick with all the candy sucked out.

[Eddie Teach]

I prefer my wine fresh and alcohol-free. 

[Malthus]

The flaw is of course that there is no particular reason why geographical origin has to be indicated by the very name of the product.

One big particular reason is that this particular product has a long history of designated itself that way, and therefore deviating from that practice would result in customer confusion.  Another reason is that geographic location does impact the product in discernible ways - i.e. there are real differences between Volnay and Pommard, and certainly differences as between them and Napa Pinot Noir.  These things matter when it comes, e.g. to getting wine for a particular meal, or in finding something that matches the tastes of the person you are going to drink the bottle with.  So refusing to protect the geographical designation does a real disservice to the customer, all in the name of allowing some producers to free ride on a famous name.

To my mind, something like "Champagne" is a name that has, like Xerox, outgrown its intellectual-property-protected origin, to indicate the very name of a thing. It would protect consumers more to have, printed on the label, "From grapes grown in the Champagne region of France" or "from grapes grown in the Napa Valley, California" rather than calling the first product "Champagne" and the second product "Sparkling Wine". 

This is a separate point - whether a particular name has become so associated with the general concept that it can't be entitled to protection anymore, just as with a trademark.  But even if true, the situation only arose in the Americas precisely because for a long time, the governments here refused to protect origin designations, so in effect the argument is somewhat perverse - that because we blocked the Champenoise from taking reasonable steps to protect their designation in the past, they should now be prevented from ever taking those steps in the future.

The fact is that most of the reputable California producers like Schramsberg and Iron Horse eschew the "Champagne" label, and it hasn't hurt their market presence at all.  I happen to think that there is a lot of good Cali sparklers being made, and there are some very good values, but the fact is that the style of these wines are quite different from Champagne due to very significant differences in climate.  As a consumer, I appreciate clear labelling on the front that informs me of origin using terms that I am familiar with based on their long history of usage.  I don't particularly care for seeing some novel bottle of "champagne" and have to search the fine print on the back label to figure out whether this is some new obscure champenoise grower I haven't heard of before or some sonoma-based operator playing games with names.

Clearly indicating the origin of the grape on the label actually gives the consumer *more* useful information than simply designating one product as "champagne" and another product as "sparkling wine". The latter merely tells the consumer the product was *not* grown in the champagne region of France, not where it *was* grown.

I find it hard to believe that the kind of person who really cares about the place their wine is grown is incapable of reading a label, and must rely on the very name of the product.
Sounds to me like tradition for tradition's sake.