Opinion ID: 399265
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Geographical Terms

Text: 27 The situation presented by regulations governing use of terms of geographical significance in wine labeling 57 is more complicated. The controversy over percentage labeling in such instances is similar to that in connection with varietal representations, but the Bureau has pointed to virtually nothing in the record supporting its position that labels featuring geographical terminology unaccompanied by grape-origin percentages are not misleading. Furthermore, aside from a boilerplate statement that (w)e believe these regulations will inform wine consumers of those things which are useful to them 58 -which appears in the preamble to the final set of regulations-the Bureau has not provided any rationale touching on the Act's consumer-protection purposes for declining to exact minimum percentage labeling in such instances. 59 28 The regulation involving brand names incorporating geographical language underscores the problem. At one point in the rulemaking process, the Bureau declared that (p)atently, the use on labels of geographical names which bear no relationship to the origin of the grapes used to make the wine can be confusing to the consumer. 60 Nonetheless, the Bureau never explained why it chose to regulate misleading geographical brand names but not equally deceptive geographical corporate or trade names. 61 We have not been referred to anything in the record indicating such disparity in treatment, nor has the agency supplied a rationale that even attempts to harmonize these regulations with the Act. We have no alternative, then, but to direct a remand of these regulations to the Bureau for further consideration.