Two interesting wine stories crossed my path today.
The first, courtesy of NPR, deals with efforts by members of the European Union (EU) to stop American wine makers from using the term “Champagne” to describe sparkling wine made in America.
The topic is actually not a trivial one. American producers have spent millions of marketing dollars building up “California Champagne” and the like for a long time. The EU has a right to protect trademarks, or whatever category this falls into.
Still, EU officials did agree to something of a compromise a number of years ago to allow US producers to use “Champagne” outside of Europe. Personally, I think the horse is out of the barn now. It is awfully hard to reassert copyright, trademark, or patent rights once you have pro-actively allowed them to be broken. The story is worth a listen though.
The second story I found interesting was one on CNN.com about the rise in alcohol levels of wine, particularly in wines from California. The article refers to these wines as “hot wines” which is a term I have never heard of, even though this is a hot topic in the wine community (see, for example, Dr. Vino or the London Review of Books . Typically these high alcohol wines are very fruity, which explains why critics have labeled them as “fruit bombs.” More generously they are referred to as “fruit-forward” wines.
It is no longer a great secret in the wine blog world that alcohol levels in California wines have been increasing along with the drive to more fruit-forward wines. Certainly this has led to a backlash on-line. In contrast, Robert Parker has long been an advocate for this style of wine making. And, to much of the wine blogosphere’s chagrin, getting a 90 on a Robert Parker review sells wine. Lots of wine. (If only Winescorecard.com could be so influential!)
We do not have much to add to either of these articles - except to say that we often enjoy fruit-forward wines, but would be happier if the alcohol was <14%. And we could care less if Korbel was Champagne or sparkling wine.
If you are learning about wine, however, these articles are important components on wine current events.
4 responses so far ↓
1 Jon // Mar 11, 2008 at 11:36 am
Regarding Champaign -
“It is awfully hard to reassert copyright, trademark, or patent rights once you have pro-actively allowed them to be broken.”
That is not necessarily correct - it all depends on your actions - and while the European laws are different from those in the US the permissive use arguments don’t get you too far - because each copy or use is a new violation of the law.
Enough on that dry topic - I will stick with a nice frizzante.
Keep up the good work!
2 swirlingnotions // Mar 11, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Good articles! I actually support the trademark of place . . . of Parmigiano Reggiano and Roquefort and Champagne. I just hope the EU can hold back the tidal wave of marketing bucks behind the American efforts.
As for hot . . . it’s a term that I’ve always associated with the way that high-alcohol wines knd of “burn” when they hit the mouth. In fact, they even burn your nostrils a bit when you nose them.
3 Steve // Mar 11, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Let me see, where did I put that law degree? Oh yeah, I don’t have one. Thanks for clearing that up, Jon!
Swirling Notions - it’ll be interesting to see how the EU stands up to America on that one. Thanks for writing - and congrats on the TV appearances!
4 Jon // Mar 12, 2008 at 2:39 pm
More than happy to help Steve. I will send you my bill later.
Leave a Comment