Forbes on Kobe Beef (and Champagne)

[Admiral Yi]

That doesn't follow. The fact that something has value doesn't mean it *should* be treated as a species of property, and belong to someone. Particularly where there is no issue of anyone "earning" that value.

In most cases of IP, the argument is that we ought to give IP rights to protect someone's work - in writing a song, or inventing a new process. Nobody "worked" to be born in France. Being a French wine or cheese maker is no greater effort than being a wine or cheese maker elsewhere. Certainly France is heir to a great tradition of wine and cheese making, but being heir to a tradition isn't the same as creating new value.

That's the argument for copyright.  Trademark protection relies on different logic.

[Ed Anger]

  No watercolor sunsets on the label, no "Angry Beaver Vineyard."

HOW DID YOU DISCOVER MY WINE?

[Malthus]

That doesn't follow. The fact that something has value doesn't mean it *should* be treated as a species of property, and belong to someone. Particularly where there is no issue of anyone "earning" that value.

In most cases of IP, the argument is that we ought to give IP rights to protect someone's work - in writing a song, or inventing a new process. Nobody "worked" to be born in France. Being a French wine or cheese maker is no greater effort than being a wine or cheese maker elsewhere. Certainly France is heir to a great tradition of wine and cheese making, but being heir to a tradition isn't the same as creating new value.

That's the argument for copyright.  Trademark protection relies on different logic.

A trademark still protects a business' goodwill - something that the business created.

[Admiral Yi]

HOW DID YOU DISCOVER MY WINE?

Once you told me your old employer it was simple detective work.

[HVC]

But it's a goodwill of tradition and standards. Regional foods are held to a higher standard then any Tom, Dick and Harry vineyard. While logically most people know that not all champagne is champagne, people  don't work that way. Look at Garbon he knows he's drinking sparkling wine but is compelled to call it champagne so any bad experience he has with "champagne" he will associate with all champagne, both real and not. This diminishes the real stuff.

[Barrister]

But it's a goodwill of tradition and standards. Regional foods are held to a higher standard then any Tom, Dick and Harry vineyard. While logically most people know that not all champagne is champagne, people  don't work that way. Look at Garbon he knows he's drinking sparkling wine but is compelled to call it champagne so any bad experience he has with "champagne" he will associate with all champagne, both real and not. This diminishes the real stuff.

I refuse to believe HVC wrote this.  There isn't a single spelling mistake or smilie anywhere.

[HVC]

 I'm serious about my wine!


Actually I hate the stuff (there's a smilie for ya lol )

[Admiral Yi]

A trademark still protects a business' goodwill - something that the business created.

Let me retract and take a different tack. 

The work that French Champagne bottlers are performing is the effort to create a better product than Andre.

BTW, in case you guys don't have it, Andre is the absolute bottom-of-the barrel American sparkling wine.

[Malthus]

But it's a goodwill of tradition and standards. Regional foods are held to a higher standard then any Tom, Dick and Harry vineyard. While logically most people know that not all champagne is champagne, people  don't work that way. Look at Garbon he knows he's drinking sparkling wine but is compelled to call it champagne so any bad experience he has with "champagne" he will associate with all champagne, both real and not. This diminishes the real stuff.

Again, those "traditions and standards" apply to individual producers, not a whole country. For evidence, I enter that Simpsons episode where Bart goes to France as an exchange student and is forced to make wine containing anti-freeze. 

To the extent that there are truly national standards, they are protected by creating mandatory country of origin labelling. To the extent that "Champagne" is a product of a particular quality, that is protected by enforcing quality standards in production.

Both of these steps - country labelling and production standards - protect consumers, while offering them choices. A better system than the arbitrary one of saying that only certain countries or regions can use certain words to refer to exactly the same thing.

[HVC]

If i recall correctly not all sparkling wine from France is labeled champagne, it has to come from the champagne region. If its anything like port then being part of a region isn't enough, either. They have to follow quality standard and use specific processes and grapes. Theses vineyards are audited by a members board/group to ensure that standards are indeed met. If champagne is the same, which I would assume it is, then it's more then just having a vineyard in the country. If I'm mistaken in
That regard then I agree champagne should not be a protected name.

[garbon]

Are American producers allowed to use the same brand name?

They seem to use "Champagne" fairly frequently.

Champagne isn't really a brand. As I said earlier, it is kinda like a step above a brand as each of the Champagne Houses already has its own brand.

Also, the rule on Champagne here is a bit complex as I think technically places that were using it before the rule are grandfathered in but as pointed out, nicer brands here tend to opt for sparking wine.

[garbon]

But it's a goodwill of tradition and standards. Regional foods are held to a higher standard then any Tom, Dick and Harry vineyard. While logically most people know that not all champagne is champagne, people  don't work that way. Look at Garbon he knows he's drinking sparkling wine but is compelled to call it champagne so any bad experience he has with "champagne" he will associate with all champagne, both real and not. This diminishes the real stuff.

I don't equate Andre with champagne from Champagne even though I'll call both champagne.  Nor do I assume that because I bought some sparkling wine from Champagne that it'll be amazing.

[garbon]

But it's a goodwill of tradition and standards. Regional foods are held to a higher standard then any Tom, Dick and Harry vineyard. While logically most people know that not all champagne is champagne, people  don't work that way. Look at Garbon he knows he's drinking sparkling wine but is compelled to call it champagne so any bad experience he has with "champagne" he will associate with all champagne, both real and not. This diminishes the real stuff.

Again, those "traditions and standards" apply to individual producers, not a whole country. For evidence, I enter that Simpsons episode where Bart goes to France as an exchange student and is forced to make wine containing anti-freeze. 

To the extent that there are truly national standards, they are protected by creating mandatory country of origin labelling. To the extent that "Champagne" is a product of a particular quality, that is protected by enforcing quality standards in production.

Both of these steps - country labelling and production standards - protect consumers, while offering them choices. A better system than the arbitrary one of saying that only certain countries or regions can use certain words to refer to exactly the same thing.

This.

[HVC]

The region thing goes beyond that too, in regard to grapes (and I assume different produce). Different soil acidity, substrate, percepitation, and seasonal variations produce different sugar levels and tastes in grapes which then effect the taste and quality in the wine. Even using the exact same process could and does lead the different wines. Hell there's variations between years at a single location, imagine the variation a continent away.

[Admiral Yi]

To the extent that "Champagne" is a product of a particular quality, that is protected by enforcing quality standards in production.

What enforcement powers do French vineyards have over American bottlers?