The question at hand is: is it hypocritical for a wine region that uses a description associated with another demarcated wine region to then attempt to protect their own regional name?
I think the answer is a simple: yes, they are being hypocritical.
The debate about tawnies was raised to illustrate that this is but one of many hypocrasies when it comes to the "truth in labelling" debate
Rob C. wrote:The debate about tawnies was raised to illustrate that this is but one of many hypocrasies when it comes to the "truth in labelling" debate
I know. But one hypocrisy doesn't excuse another. Each one has to be tackled on it's own or you end up with a school playground-style debate between the perpetrators.
Until I read this thread I had never heard of "truth in labeling". Do the Port producers / IVDP subscribe to it? Do the guys in Napa?
oscarquevedo wrote:
I agree that it is nor very accurate to call 10 year old Port to something that is a blend of Port with 8, 10, 15 and 20 year or so. So I'm with you when you suggest further explanation about the origin of the Ports in the final blend. Should the IVDP allow us and I'll adopt this for our back labels.
That would be very cool! Let us know what the IVDP says.
Derek T. wrote:I have only had one US fortified wine that was produced in a similar style to those of the demarcated region of the Douro. It was ok.
Come on Derek admit it, you liked that Cali "port" you tried and you didn't even guess it wasn't from the Douro.
I don't deny it, but I couldn't remember what it was called and I don't think I have a note so all I remember is that it was ok to drink, in the way that lots of Port is ok to drink. Did it have Port on the label?
There is definitely some hypocrisy here. I understand the desire for grandfathering, but grandfather doesn't have to live forever. Give the wineries a timeframe. "You don't have to change your label today, but you do in the next X years." That would give the producers some time to adjust and inform their customer base, perhaps using a transition label with both an old and new name.
I'm just waiting for Nappa, North Yorkshire, and Nappa, Finland to start making wine
We've gone through this exercise in Australia and on the whole I think it has gone pretty well. Initially they started with the French, and part of the agreement was to drop many of the French words off the title of the properties or wines - words like Chateau or Domaine were removed from property titles. The Hermitage was dropped off Grange, as well. The use of Champagne was then gradually phased out over a period of serveral years. Anything that was labeled didn't have to be relabelled but anything that was new. Thats probably been in place for around 10 years with Champagne now, and I'd have to say that sparkling wine production in Australia has improved hugely in both quality and production volumes. Champagne sales are up here too and everyone is happy.
With Port, as with Sherry, its much more recent - only about 2 years I think, since the agreement came in. The jury is still out on how the transition will go and it was already very difficult for fortified wine sales here. We are still allowed to use Tawny. For vintage port style , it's usually being labelled Vintage Fortified, although some producers make their port styles out of just shiraz and will label it as Fortified shiraz. My understanding is that no bottles had to be relabelled so it is a gradual fazing out.
I think that the "port" makers of Australia will be no worse off.
The hardest thing for the industry here has been with the labelling of Sherry and Tokay as there hasn't been an obvious way to rename them. Some marketing dicks came up with Apero and Topaque which got locked in, but everybody hates the names.
As part of all this, Australian names were also protected - not that was that likely to come up. The overall agreement between Australia and the EU extends to other things as well such as cheese and ham.
The Napa winemakers can't have it both ways, and need to pull their heads in.
On the Region names in different countries, I don't think that is a big deal as the Country is specified on the bottle.
There is a Bendigo region in New Zealand and One in Australia (Crasto's Dominic Morris makes wine at Pondalowie which is in the Australian Bendigo region) - The region names have been around for longer than the wine in both cases, and I've never heard of it being an issue.
Perhaps I missed the point of the article...but it seems there are two issues here. The Napa folks seem upset with wines that are being falsely labeled as "Napa" for the express purspose of deceiving the public. That seems reasonable to me as a consumer.
Somewhat different is the case of California producers using the word "Champagne" or "Port" on their label. This is a very old issue and has been objected to with considerable merit. But come on, does anyone really believe Heitz Ink Grade Port comes from Porto? Or that V Sattui Madeira is from Madeira? Their labels clearly (often proudly) indicate their true origin, and I do not believe they are trying to deceive anyone. At worst they are trying to cash in on a recognizable name or style, which is perhaps a dubious practice but not deceptive to consumers (unless we're talking about very low-end wines being marketed to very low-end consumers).
So I say NOT hypocritical.
If you're a real Port wine producer and you think your cusomers are being confused by such labels, you should probably re-examine the implicit assumption that your customers are very simple-minded.
Your logic seems to suggest that it would be OK for a poor quality soft drinks producer to sell "Pigswill CocaCola, produce of Tiawan"?
Surely no one, not even the simple-minded, would think it was "the real thing"?
Whether there is intent to deceive or not, it is hypocritical of the makers of one product to seek to protect what they believe to be the essence of their "brand" whilst refusing to acknowledge or extend the same right to the producers of a similar product from another region.
Tom D. wrote:But come on, does anyone really believe Heitz Ink Grade Port comes from Porto?
That's beside the point, and is easily countered by Rheinhessen Napa Chardonnay. I'd be willing to bet that Napa would protest the existence of that made-up wine.
"Port" is not a style of wine, no matter how often that rationalization is used by Napa (or other) winemakers to excuse their abuse of the term. The style of wine is fortified, so any use of the word "Port" on a California fortified wine is a deliberate attempt to fool consumers into thinking that they're buying something that they're not. The fact that it is illegal to use the term "fortified" on bottles containing alcohol in the US is beside the point and has no bearing on the validity of mis-using the term "Port."
Port has an identity crisis. Many people don't realize that it only comes from Portugal - in no small part due to past abuse by California and Australian wineries - and so when they see Heitz Ink Grade Port on the shelf they think they're getting real Port. If they don't like it, they won't even bother to try a Taylor Fladgate Vintage Port. After all, it's the same Port right?
Your logic seems to suggest that it would be OK for a poor quality soft drinks producer to sell "Pigswill CocaCola, produce of Tiawan
Derek
I'm not wishing to get dragged into a long argument about this. I would just point out that "Coca-Cola" is a specific brand. Your example would only be valid if Heitz was selling "Fonseca Port."
My point was simply that, while probably a noxious practice, Heitz using the word "Port" on their label is not directly comparable to the case of a non-Napa producer deliberately trying to deceive consumers into believing their wine is from Napa. That is a different matter, hence the word "hypocrisy " doesn't fit IMHO, even though both practices may be wrong. Hence we appear to hold differing opinions, I can live with that if you can.
Glenn E. wrote:
Port has an identity crisis. Many people don't realize that it only comes from Portugal - in no small part due to past abuse by California and Australian wineries - and so when they see Heitz Ink Grade Port on the shelf they think they're getting real Port. If they don't like it, they won't even bother to try a Taylor Fladgate Vintage Port. After all, it's the same Port right?
As I tried to imply, I give most Heitz customers credit for more intelligence than that. Change the example to Turning Leaf Port and we would agree. I just think it's an issue that affects very low-end wines more than the better stuff. There are plenty of crappy Portuguese Ports coming into this country too, and it's unlikely an uninformed consumer is going to be induced by them to try Taylors vp either.
Your logic seems to suggest that it would be OK for a poor quality soft drinks producer to sell "Pigswill CocaCola, produce of Tiawan
Derek
I'm not wishing to get dragged into a long argument about this. I would just point out that "Coca-Cola" is a specific brand. Your example would only be valid if Heitz was selling "Fonseca Port."
My point was simply that, while probably a noxious practice, Heitz using the word "Port" on their label is not directly comparable to the case of a non-Napa producer deliberately trying to deceive consumers into believing their wine is from Napa. That is a different matter, hence the word "hypocrisy " doesn't fit IMHO, even though both practices may be wrong. Hence we appear to hold differing opinions, I can live with that if you can.
Yes, it is hypocrytical. So, are the Napa producers OK if I bottle and sell a wine made in Argentina marked "Napa Cabernet Sauvignon" if I clearly mark on the bottle that it is made in Argentina? Of course they aren't OK with that.
In the world of Intellectual Property trademarks are known to have value and that it is unfair practice to get a free ride off of the good will and trust built up by the owner of the mark. This is precisely what happens when someone marks their fortified wine "Port" or "port" -- they are attempting to get a free ride on another's reputation. Not only is this unfair, it will tend to dillute and degrade the brand. "Wow, I had a 'Port' made by winery X in Texas, it was very one-dimensional and boring." Someone over hearsthis conversation and remembers " . . . Port . . . was very one-dimensional and boring." Their expectation of port has been diminished and they may never try an authentic Port when the opportunity arises: in their mind, it has already been appraised as one-dimensional and boring. The same analysis applies to the degradation of the brand "Champagne" when used to designate any old sparkling wine made elsewhere. Call it what you want, so long as you don't call it Champagne! Now, I'm not saying the terms "Port" and "Champagne" are trademarked. I'm saying that there is a value associated with these terms; the value belongs to a demarcated area of the Douro river valley and the Marne department.
I think those places should have held out. On the other hand, perhaps they have more to lose by by being excluded from the US marketplace than US brands have to lose by being excluded from the French marketplace or the Portugal marketplace.
![[bye2.gif]](./images/smilies/bye2.gif "See Ya"){kind=small}
![[friends.gif]](./images/smilies/friends.gif "Friends"){kind=small}
