Kommersant reports that the four largest Russian producers of Sovetskoe Champagne have written to the Russian Agriculture Minister asking him to transfer the Sovetskoe trade mark to the Producers of Champagne Wines, a non-profit organisation, the mission of which you can probably guess from its name. The mark is currently held by Soyuzplodoimport, a company which manages a number of trade marks on behalf of the state. At present, the “champagne” producers pay a licence fee that enables them to use the mark, but it has come to their attention that Soyuzplodoimport intends to sell the mark to a non-protit undertaking that does not produce sparkling wine. The “champagne” producers are concerned that they won’t be able to use the mark under the new ownership.

The IPKat was goggle-eyed when he read this story. He thought that the French producers of Champagne had managed to eradicate all other uses of the term on wine. However, it seems that the use on Sovetskoe Champagne, first developed in the 1930s to provide a Soviet alternative to Champagne, remains.
SOUR GRAPES OVER RUSSIAN CHAMPAGNE SOUR GRAPES OVER RUSSIAN CHAMPAGNE Reviewed by Anonymous on Thursday, November 03, 2005 Rating: 5


  1. In the days of the Soviet Union "champagne" was available from the "Russian Shop" in High Holborn. As the word was printed in cyrillic characters, as in your illustration, no one seemed to worry. In Moscow in those days you could buy Georgiwan "cognac" again with the word in cyrillic characters.

  2. I remember the Russian Shop. It had some of the most desirable watches, binoculars, cameras and other optical equipment I'd ever seen. Wonder what happened to all that stuff ...

  3. In may countries Champagne (or cognac) have become the 'style of wine' (or drink). And they should remain as such no matter what French say about their prestigious overpriced regional wives. 'Soviet Champagne' for one is not overpriced and is better (in my opinion) than some French champagne I have tried.


All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.