I tend to think that fraud is a bit strong here. What you are really
discussing here are labeling laws and the trademarks.
Trademark laws vary from country to country and I believe needs to
registered in each country.
The biggest issue with the word Champagne is that if France really wants to
protect that name---it needs to be registered and defended everywhere so
that the name does not become classified as generic. Since the name is not
descriptive it likely would be easily defended. Examples are Kleenex Brand
Tissues...some refer to a tissue as Kleenex and that company defends their
name so that it does not become generic. Another is Band-Aid brand adhesive
bandages....and on and on.
This might explain why companies that have holdings in France and
California...such as Mumm, Chandon, and or Roederer that they call French
Product Champagne and the USA-Cal Sparking Wine. There are probably legal
standing and their assets could likely be attached in France. But if an
American producer has no holdings in France...no issue.
I don't think it is a fraud but it is a lack of respect for the name
Champagne to use this name outside the production of that said region. But
French customs do not have to be respected in the USA nor the USA in France
and that is how it is all around the world. All laws are local.
Again...does anyone know of the name Burgundy being used for Pinot Noir here
in the USA the way the Champagne is. I really do not other than a box wine.
"Ian Hoare" > wrote in message
news
> Salut/Hi Dana Myers,
>
> le/on Sat, 25 Oct 2003 20:54:25 -0700, tu disais/you said:-
>
> >Consumers that give a sh*t understand the difference
> >between "champagne" from California and Champagne.
>
> That's probab ly true, yes.
>
> > Other consumers don't matter (they don't care... they just don't
> >know the difference and don't care anyway).
>
> I'm sorry, Dana, I find that a little arrogant towards the millions of
> people who buy "champagne" in those countries which allow their local
> sparklers to be called that, and all similar attempts to pass off local
> products using prestigious names from elsewhere. It's not JUST dishonest
> vis-a-vis the people in the areas whose product names are being usurped,
but
> worse, it's fraud against the consumer. As you say, they may well not know
> the difference, or that "Tokay d'Alsace" or "Tokay" from Rutherglen are
> attempts to pass off their products (decent enough to stand on their own
> names) as "the real thing".
>
> >buy much French wine. If worrying about your name
> >is a big deal, I'm not interesting in your wine. The
> >reasons should be obvious.
>
> They aren't. Not to me anyway. Passing off is passing off whether it's
"Feta
> cheese" or "Tokay" or "Parma ham" from France or "Champagne" from the USA
or
> Australia or "Blue Mountain Coffee" from Sumatra. It cheats both the
> producer and the consumer. And saying that because the consumer is not yet
> knowledgeable enough to know, s/he doesn't matter, is as arrogant and
> dishonest as anything I've read recently. Sorry, but that's how I see it.
>
> Ignorance can be cured by knowledge. An ignorant consumer (I have lots of
> visitors who are ignorant about wine here) can usually tell the difference
> when they get a chance to taste one wine against the other. As to which
they
> will prefer, that's another matter. But I CANNOT accept that it right that
> laws don't forbid producers/ entrepreneurs/importers from passsing off, no
> matter how long the fraud has been going on. This isn't in any sense to be
> taken as anti-American, because I feel JUST as strongly about French and
> British passing off. More so in fact, as these countries take a strong
> stance against it when it is their products whose names are being misused.
>
> --
> All the Best
> Ian Hoare
>
> Sometimes oi just sits and thinks
> Sometimes oi just sits.