Source: http://www.winelawonreserve.com/page/19/
Timestamp: 2017-04-24 11:24:57
Document Index: 751038607

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 4', 'art 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', 'art 4', '§ 4', 'CJEU ', 'art 9']

On Reserve - Page 19
In addition to its trademark infringement claim, Chateau Mouton Rothschild also directed Osawa Wines to withdraw its trademark application to use the Flying Mouton label in Japan and Australia. In total, Chateau Mouton Rothschild filed nine oppositions to the wine label, all of which were rejected by Jennie Walden, trademark assistant commissioner. The director of Osawa Wines, Mark Lim, relayed that the word “Mouton” derives from many disparate objects and instances. “Osawa Wines claimed that its use of the word ‘mouton’ is meant to be a translation of the French word for ‘sheep’ and referenced the vineyard’s origins as a sheep farm. In fact, the wine’s label displays an image of a flying sheep.” (See Château Mouton Rothschild Loses Trademark Fight Against Flying Mouton; see also New Zealand Winery Wins Mouton Trademark Battle.)
Permanent link to this post (265 words, estimated 1:04 mins reading time)	{ 1 comment }
For an interesting and wine-related read, see Judge John G. Koeltl’s opinion here. Permanent link to this post (479 words, estimated 1:55 mins reading time)	{ 0 comments }
Permanent link to this post (367 words, estimated 1:28 mins reading time)	{ 0 comments }
Not less than 60% 30% of the products utilized in the manufacture of domestic table wine and domestic fortified wine by a farm winery shall be grown in Kansas except when a lesser proportion is authorized by the director based upon the director’s findings and judgment. The label of domestic wine and domestic fortified wine shall indicate that a majority of the products utilized in the manufacture of the wine at such winery were grown in Kansas. The production requirement of this subsection shall be determined based on the annual production of domestic table wine and domestic fortified wine by the farm winery. Read in conjunction with federal law, this may appear—at first glance—inconsistent with federal law. Wine labels in the United States are governed partially by Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations, specifically by Part 4. (See 27 C.F.R. Part 4.) Section 4.25 of Title 27 defines an appellation of origin for American wines. Namely, § 4.25(a)(1) allows a state to be an American wine’s appellation of origin if “[a]t least 75 percent of the wine is derived from fruit or agricultural products grown in the appellation area indicated,” as per § 4.25(b)(1). However, the new Kansas law does not avoid the federal legislation. It is possible, under this new law, to be a winery in Kansas, produce wine containing 30% Kansas grapes, and not violate the federal legislation. The federal law requires 75% of the grapes to be grown in the state of Kansas if the appellation of the wine is Kansas (e.g., “Kansas wine”), but it is not mandatory that a wine have an appellation. But irregardless of whether a Kansas winery can legally comply with the federal law while using 30% (or less) of Kansas grapes in its wine, a more proper question to ponder is this: should this rather liberal regulation of Kansas wineries be allowed? Permanent link to this post (572 words, estimated 2:17 mins reading time)	{ 0 comments }
During my read of the article and the ruling, I was intrinsically compelled to compare this regulation to those I’ve encountered in my studies of American wine law. Labeling of wine is governed by 27 CFR Part 4, and health statements are specifically governed by Section 4.39(h) et seq. The CFR defines a health-related statement—in shortened form—as “any statement related to health . . . and includes statements of a curative or therapeutic nature that, expressly or by implication, suggest a relationship between the consumption of alcohol, wine, or any substance found within the wine, and health benefits or effects on health.” (See 24 CFR § 4.39(h).) Generally, health-related statements that are untrue or “tend[] to create a misleading impression as to the effects on health of alcohol consumption” are not allowed on labels. The TTB may approve of some specific health claims on the labels of a wine, but the TTB also requires that the claim be truthful and properly supported by scientific or medical evidence. While this bar is generally high to meet, it presumably offers somewhat more flexibility than the standards held out by the recent European ruling. (As mentioned, the CJEU would not allow truthful labels on alcohol beverages if the statement tended to have any health claim.) In practice, however, this most likely proves otherwise; the TTB does regulate wine labels and health-related claims placed on such to a very high degree. In fact, it is unlikely the TTB would approve a wine label containing the same phrase as the German winemakers—“easily digestive”—for the same or similar reasons.
Permanent link to this post (742 words, estimated 2:58 mins reading time)	{ 0 comments }
Permanent link to this post (399 words, estimated 1:36 mins reading time)	{ 2 comments }
Permanent link to this post (431 words, estimated 1:43 mins reading time)	{ 1 comment }
Over the course of the last two years, I’ve had the pleasure of expanding not only my knowledge in the area of wine and law, but also my contacts. I traveled through various wine regions—including Emilia-Romagna, Tuscany, Champagne, and the Douro Valley—to expand my wine vocabulary and learn about the various legislative measures pursued by each region. I spent a good portion of last summer in the Champagne region of France at the Wine & Law Program of the Unversité de Reims Champagne-Ardenne, studying under some of the most respected scholars in the area of wine law, where I received a university diploma in transnational wine trade law. Upon my return, I worked with Lot18 on some legal and regulatory compliance matters in the context of direct shipment in the States. Center for Wine Origins invited me on a trip to Portugal last fall, where I learned more about the legal measures of the Douro wine region implemented to protect the region’s wine products in an international market. Much, if not all, of these opportunities spawned from the creation and continual dedication to On Reserve. With complete probity, I never imagined, when I started this blog, that I would one day proclaim wine law to be the actual direction of my career. In fact, during some points in time, following this rather unique interest seemed implausible if not impossible. Fortunately, the rather ambitious decision to pursue a niche area of law came to fruition this last year. I am honored to say that I will begin my career as an associate attorney at an alcohol beverage law firm in the Washington, D.C. area this August.
As for what is to come, I once again find myself dumbfounded in response. I think the appropriate answer amounts to this: a lot is in store. Upon many years of practice, I hope to teach a course in wine and the law one day, and I certainly hope to publish more. However fortuitous the idea of wine and law may have been for me years ago, it is indeed my conscious pathway today.
Permanent link to this post (912 words, 1 image, estimated 3:39 mins reading time)	{ 8 comments }
A few months ago, I came across an article posted by the Indian Wine Academy that I thought to be particularly interesting. The article, The Growing Need for Wine Laws in India, attracted me because I so rarely come across research on India and wine law. In fact, I can say quite candidly that I’ve never even tasted Indian wine before. Setting aside any cultural orders or norms that may restrict or downright prohibit consumption of wine within India, I am still unfamiliar with any wine products exported from the country. (I am an advocate of trying different wines when I am out to eat or when I peruse the aisle of my local wine store. While I’ve had the pleasure of tasting some unique wines in the last few years, including a Tunisian bottle that just made my list of favorites and an Ethiopian bouquet of honey wine, I do not believe I am yet to taste wine from India.) While the article reposted by the Indian Wine Academy discusses the relative definition of wine laws and the functions of said laws from both a domestic and international perspective, the article itself does not actually advocate why India needs wine laws. Although the author suggests a list of considerations Indian legislators should be mindful of when implementing wine regulations, the article itself does not directly detail the caveats of the current lack of Indian legislation for wine. At the time of my reading the article, I could only surmise that the connection between espousing wine regulation in India and the international market was to promote the growth of Indian wines through transnational wine trade.
Since my initial reading of the above article, much developed with respect to the global trade of Indian wines. For example, an article titled India Struggles to Develop Taste for Wine details the limited interest in wine that seems to be prevalent throughout the country. Just recently, The Times of India announced that the Indian Grape Processing Board (“IGPB”) plans to implement legislation to regulate winemaking and, in turn, the internal standards of the Indian wine industry. (See Legislation Planned to Make Indian Wine World-Class.) The Times of India reports that, “[t]here will be laws regarding the manufacture of wine, quality, brand and marketing. All wine-related practices-manufacturing, agricultural, critical point analysis, food safety norms-will come under the legislation.” (Id.) Representatives from the IGPB indicate that these regulations will, in time, allow the international market to recognize Indian wines, as well as improve the quality of Indian wine products. (See id.) Currently, in India, “any name can be given to wine made from table grapes or wine variety grapes.” (Id.) After new legislation is implemented, the IGPB reports that a grapegrower in one region will not be allowed to label his wine as that from a different region that is geographically recognized under the legislation. To some extent, early talks seem to indicate that India will create a system that is similar to the appellation of origin system widely discussed and used as a model by many global wine producers.
While India can be expected to develop legislation with respect to its wine production and grape growing over the next few years, critics seem hopeful that there is room for India to capture a respectable slice in the international wine trade market, in addition to a development of an internal wine cultural. See Wine and the India EU Free Trade Agreement and Revisiting the Indian Wine Market. The course of the development of wine laws and regulations in India will be a topic for future consideration on this blog.
Permanent link to this post (599 words, estimated 2:24 mins reading time)	{ 0 comments }
On May 8, 2012, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (“TTB”) announced a proposal for establishing an American Viticultural Area (“AVA”) for the Ancient Lakes of Columbia Valley in Douglas, Grant, and Kittitas Counties in central Washington. The notice states that TTB: proposes to establish the 162,762-acre “Ancient Lakes of Columbia Valley” viticultural area in Douglas, Grant, and Kittitas Counties in central Washington. The proposed viticultural area lies within the larger Columbia Valley viticultural area [27 CFR 9.74]. TTB designates viticultural areas to allow vintners to better describe the origin of their wines and to allow consumers to better identify wines they may purchase. (27 CFR Part 9 Notice No. 128 Proposed Establishment of the Ancient Lakes of Columbia Valley Viticultural Area.) The proposal indicates that the Ancient Lakes of Columbia Valley is distinguishable from the Columbia Valley AVA because of the topography, soils, climate, and geography of the propose viticultural area. (See TTB Newsletter for May 11, 2012.) Accordingly, the proposed AVA is located within a “distinctive landform” that is known locally as the Quincy Basin, which has “elevations lower than the surrounding area and slopes gently to the east.” (Federal Registrer: Proposed Establishment of the Ancient Lakes of Columbia Valley Viticultural Area.) It is noted that the floor of the basin is flatter than the surrounding region. (See id.) Additionally, according to the United States Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service, the proposed AVA has 65 soil types and the petition itself compares the soil of the proposed AVA with the soil of the current Columbia Valley AVA. (See id.) “The tables show significant contrasts in soils within and outside of the proposed Ancient Lakes of Columbia Valley viticultural area.” (Id.)
Permanent link to this post (968 words, 2 images, estimated 3:52 mins reading time)	{ 0 comments }