For the half-year to 31 December 2014, the IPKat's regular team is supplemented by contributions from guest bloggers Rebecca Gulbul, Lucas Michels and Marie-Andrée Weiss.

Regular round-ups of the previous week's blogposts are kindly compiled by Alberto Bellan.

Monday, 17 June 2013

China leads US in Champagne protection

"Cheers!"
This Kat avoids all sparkling wines, regardless of their geographical provenance, since they get literally up her nose. Far more fun for her are the still, dry products of the vine or, even better, a good single malt whisky.  That is not to say, however, that he does not take an acute interest in the legal shenanigans that have accompanied the persistent efforts of the French Champagne industry to secure the exclusive right to use the word 'Champagne' in respect of one particular type of sparkling wine -- and the equally persistent efforts of their cousins in the United States to thwart those efforts.  In a helpful blogpost, Elizabeth Dunn, a trade mark attorney in the Brighton office of Dehns, explains the current legal position:
The Comité Interprofessionel du Vin de Champagne (CIVC), the body representing producers of Champagne, has succeeded in securing protection in China, as a geographical indication, for the word CHAMPAGNE and its Chinese transliteration ""
 China is currently only the twelfth-largest market for champagne exports in the world, but it is the fastest growing.  Sales exceeded two million bottles in 2012, an increase of 52% since 2011 and a quadrupling of sales since 2006.  With a population of 1.3 billion there is enormous potential for further growth: a spokesman for CIVC is quoted as saying the country is one of the biggest future markets for champagne. It was therefore imperative to protect the name and to avoid it becoming a generic word for sparkling wine which would dilute the reputation of 'Champagne' in the minds of Chinese consumers. 
 The applications were filed with the Administration of Quality Supervision Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ), one of three organisations which can grant geographical indicationprotection in China, in June 2012.  Published in December 2012, they proceeded rapidly to registration on 20 March 2013.  The registrations include a list of qualifications to be met by producers labelling their product as Champagne; in order to qualify the grapes must be grown in the Champagne region of France, the grapes must be of the correct variety and the wine must be manufactured by the  traditional process. Before obtaining these registrations, Champagne manufacturers had to rely on the concepts of "famous foreign place name" as set out in Chinese trade mark law and "unique name of a famous commodity" defined in the Anti-Unfair Competition law to take action against those using the mark on wine produced outside France and on numerous other goods from candles to dog toys.  
Viet-Champ
The successful registrations make it possible to initiate administrative raid actions, customs protection and civil litigation on grounds of trade mark infringement. The rapidity with which the Chinese authorities acknowledged the status of Champagne and allowed its protection as a GI provides a sharp contrast to the position in the US, a significantly more developed market for the product.  The United States is the second largest export market for champagne (only the British drink more). Sales of Champagne in the US totalled 23 million bottles in 2012.  However, presumably as a result of the lobbying power of its own, long-established, wine producers, the US authorities have been reluctant to limit the exclusive use of the Champagne mark to the French producers. The US is now among only a handful of countries which does not offer full protection to the Champagne name; the others are Russia, Vietnam and Argentina.  Arguably, champagne is seen as a generic term for sparkling wine by US consumers and the dilution feared by the CIVC in China is already apparent in the US.  Californian champagne is still legally available from US wine merchants and is traditionally served at theinauguration dinner for each new US President.  
The protection for geographical indications of source as it is now understood was set out in the Trade -Related Aspect of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPS) 1994 to which the US was a signatory.  This was the first internationally codified protection for GIs. Under the TRIPS agreement, geographical indications are 
"indications which identify a good as originating in the territory of a Member, or a region or locality in that territory, where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of the good is essentially attributable to its geographical origin".  
Under Article 23 of the agreement, specific provisions give additional protection for wines and spirits.  These state that members must enact laws that prevent the use of geographical indications for wines and spirits that do not originate from the designated geographical location.  Further, these laws must also prevent uses of such indications where the true place of origin appears in conjunction with the geographical designation of the goods. 

 The US has never enforced this article to the satisfaction of the champagne producers.  The national regulations which govern the use of GIs in the US are those of the Alcohol and Tobacco Trade and Tax Bureau (TTB).  These regulations divide geographical indications for wines into categories and base their protection on these divisions.  Champagne is defined as a 'semi-generic' indication and, for many years, could be used on wines which did not originate in the Champagne region provided that the actual place of origin was used in conjunction with the geographical name -- hence Californian Champagne. Following years of negotiation between the US and the EU, an agreement on trade in wine was signed on 10 March 2006.  In that agreement, the US agreed to change the legal status of these semi-generic names to restrict their use solely to wines originating in the relevant member state.  The law to give effect to this restriction was enacted on 20 December 2006.  However, there was a significant limitation to the protection enacted which is the basis of the ongoing complaint against the US by the CIVC.  There is a "grandfather" provision included in the US legislation which allows any person who was using a semi-generic name in direct conjunction with an appellation of origin disclosing the true place of origin of the wine, prior to 10 March 2006 to continue with that use
 Given that many of the sparkling wines produced in the US are made using the traditional Champagne method and were developed by representatives from, or with connections to, the French Champagne houses, it is hardly surprising that they are reluctant to relinquish the name.  The CIVC continues to educate US consumers as to the special status of Champagne via its educational and promotional arm the 'Champagne Bureau'.  Their espoused goal is global protection of the Champagne name but it may be some time before the US gives in to perceived EU protectionism and removes all the rights of its producers to use the famous name. 

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Has Jeremy had a temporary sex change, lasting for the first two sentences? Or is this post assembled from bits from different places, like Frankenstein's monster?

Jeremy said...

Anonymous: no, it's not a temporary sex change -- it's a combination of fatigue, advancing old age and negligence. I'll try to do better next time!

Subscribe to the IPKat's posts by email here

Just pop your email address into the box and click 'Subscribe':