West Sonoma Coast: Investing in Marketing over AVA Recognition

05/06/11

Vintners and growers from the far western coastal areas of the Sonoma Coast AVA have recently launched a marketing program to promote the “WestSonomaCoast” area. The group has determined, at least for now, that the politics and bureaucracy surrounding the AVA formation process do not best serve the group’s goal of distinguishing the far west coastal properties and wines from the larger and Sonoma Coast AVA. Although these marketing efforts may, in the future, strengthen the name, boundary and scientific evidence will be needed to support a new AVA petition. Thus, this group appears to be testing the theory that a geographically oriented marketing program can build brand equity to an equal or greater degree than forming a new AVA and using that AVA name on the label of each qualifying bottle of wine. Of course without any legal recognition of an AVA or a certification mark, one wonders how the group will be able to claim control of the West Sonoma Coast name.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/04/01/FD821IMPRL.DTL

For more information or assistance on the filing of applications for recognition of AVAs contact Carol Kingery Ritter at [email protected].

WTO Reports Continued Progress on Multilateral Register for Geographical Indications for Wines and Spirits

02/28/11

In the WTO’s continuing efforts to move forward the 13-year old agenda on a multilateral register for geographical indications for wines and spirits, the WTO reported last week that a small working group representing the divergent positions of the various member countries had completed two additional sections of “emerging text” for the register proposal. “Emerging text” represents a single document which has the elements of each of the various WTO member positions reflected in bracketed text to reflect the differences between the positions, and unbracketed text to reflect the areas of agreement. While the development of the emerging text is a positive step forward, the majority of such text still remains bracketed, indicating that any agreement on a format for a multilateral register for geographical indications for wines and spirits still remains fairly elusive.

To read the WTO press release on the negotiations click on the following link:

http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news11_e/trip_ss_11feb11_e.htm

For information or assistance on geographical indication issues contact Scott Gerien at [email protected].

Some Movement at WTO on Multilateral Register for Geographical Indications for Wines & Spirits

01/28/11

In what is being touted by the World Trade Organization (WTO) as the first attempt to produce a single draft text for a Multilateral Register for Geographical Indications for Wines and Spirits pursuant to the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), representatives from WTO member countries met this month and put together a written draft of their conflicting positions on how one would notify a geographical indication for wines or spirits for registration on a multilateral register.

As some background, WTO members agreed during the Doha Development Round of WTO trade negotiations in 2001 to develop a multilateral register for geographical indications for wines and spirits so that terms such as Cognac, Napa Valley and Barolo could receive recognition or protection as place names at the international level.

However, exactly what such protection would be and how it would be accomplished was not set forth in any manner at the Doha Rounds and the negotiations that followed demonstrated that there were vast differences between WTO members as to what these should be. On the one side was the “new world” led by the U.S., Australia, Canada and others which believed that the multilateral register should be nothing more than a list of wine and spirit geographical indications that would simply serve as a reference for WTO members with no legal effect. On the other side was the “old world” led by the European Union, Switzerland, and later a network of developing countries seeking to tie their own IP interests to the geographical indication issue, which wanted mandatory protection of wine and spirit geographical indications in all WTO countries once placed on the multilateral register.

Between these two groups was Hong Kong, which set forth a “middle ground” proposal which attempted to address concerns raised by both sides: on the one side, the new world countries were concerned with conflicts of geographical indications with trademarks and terms which were generic in some countries, such as Champagne; on the other side, the old world countries sought to have some type of legal effect for the registration system so that geographical indications would have protection on par with other types of intellectual property. Along with Hong Kong, a middle ground position has also been proposed by the International Trademark Association. Both of these proposals have provisions for the protection of trademarks with prior rights and recognition of generic terms, while also allowing geographical indications with no conflicting issues to be recognized and protected with legal effect.

Since Doha, the process has been characterized by gridlock with very little movement on the principal issue of the multilateral register for wines and spirits, and expansion of the gridlock by adding other controversial topics to the discussion, such as expansion of such a register to goods other than wines and spirits.

The WTO has set a deadline of the end of the first quarter of 2011 for a draft written text covering six different points related to the Multilateral Register. This development this month is movement on the first point. It is an ambitious plan, but given the lack of movement over the past 10 years, certainly something to be optimistic about.

For more information on the current negotiations on the Multilateral Register for Geographical Indications for Wines and Spirits, follow the below link to the WTO web site:

http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news11_e/trip_ss_13jan11_e.htm

For more information on assistance with protecting geographical indications in the U.S. and abroad, contact Scott Gerien at [email protected]

TTB Issues Final Rule on New Procedures for Recognizing AVAs

01/22/11

On January 20, 2011, TTB published the long awaited Final Rule on its controversial Notice No. 78, which proposed substantial changes to the AVA petitioning and formation process. Notice No. 78 was published on November 20, 2007; the same day that the agency published Notice No. 77, proposing to establish the Calistoga AVA.

Perhaps the two most controversial topics addressed in Notice No. 78 were proposed changes to the “grandfather” rules that address conflicts between brand names and AVA names and TTB’s stated concern over nested AVAs. In the Final Rule, TTB backed off its proposal to create new “grandfather” rules stating that it was persuaded by opposing comments that stressed the potential for the proposed scheme to mislead consumers. On the subject of nested AVAs, or AVAs within AVAs, TTB left the door open to the possibility that a petition to establish a new AVA entirely within or overlapping an existing AVA may result in the new AVA being excluded from the larger area.

Procedurally, the Final Rule greatly expands the petition evidence requirements and procedures for submitting and processing AVA petitions. TTB emphasized that its new procedural rules do not impose new standards but “represent a codification of longstanding administrative authority and practice and address a need for greater transparency.”

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2011/pdf/2011-1138.pdf

For information on DP&F’s services related to AVA formation and expansion contact Richard Mendelson at [email protected]

New California Law Requiring Use of "Sonoma County" on Wine with Sonoma County AVAs In Effect … Kind Of

01/19/11

January 1, 2011, was the effective date of California Business & Professions Code Section 25246 which mandates that any wine label carrying the name of an AVA located entirely within Sonoma County must also bear the appellation “Sonoma County” on the label in a font no smaller than two millimeters on packages larger than 187 ml, and no smaller than one millimeter on packages of 187 ml or less. However, even though the law is now officially on the books, it only applies to wine bottled on or after January 1, 2014. This prospective date was selected in order to give wineries sufficient time to prepare their packaging for the transition.

While this law is based on similar laws for Napa Valley, Paso Robles and Lodi, it differs from those laws in that it does not require that “Sonoma County” be used in close conjunction with the name of the smaller Sonoma County AVA, nor that the label font for the “Sonoma County” appellation be comparable in size to the label font of the smaller AVA.

For the full text of the law, click on the following link:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=41748816170+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

Changes to Boundary of Santa Maria Valley AVA Effective on January 28, 2011

01/18/11

On December 29, 2010, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) approved the expansion of the Santa Maria Valley AVA in California’s San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties by approximately 19,000 acres. The expansion comes along the AVA’s current Southern border in Santa Barbara County. Proponents of the AVA indicated that the expansion was necessary to include vineyards near the Southwest portion of the AVA that were not contemplated when the AVA was first recognized in 1981. The effective date of the new boundary is January 28, 2011.

To see the new boundaries of the Santa Maria Valley AVA, follow the below link to the Federal Register announcing TTB’s recognition of the expansion:

http://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2010/12/29/2010-32873/expansion-of-the-santa-maria-valley-viticultural-area#p-62

For information on DP&F’s services related to AVA formation and expansion contact Richard Mendelson at [email protected]