TTB Extends Deadline for Comments on Clarifying Use of Winemaking Terms

01/20/11

On December 29, 2010, TTB extended the comment period for the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the Use of Various Winemaking Terms on Wine Labels and in Advertisements, aka Notice No. 109. The comment period will end on March 4, 2011. Notice No. 109 seeks wine industry input on TTB’s proposal to define terms used on wine labels and in wine advertising such as “Estate,” “Estates,” “Estate grown,” “Proprietor grown,” “Vintner grown,” “Vineyard,” “Orchard,” “Farm” and “Ranch.”

All comments and documents associated with Notice No. 109 can be viewed at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=TTB-2010-0006.

Comments can be posted online at:
http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=TTB-2010-0006-0001.

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]

Interstate wine shipping possibly on its way back to Supreme Court

12/04/10

In the next few weeks it is expected that the Supreme Court will decide whether to grant certiorari to hear the appeal of the case of Siesta Village Market, LLC v. Steen, 595 F.3d 239 (5th Cir. 2010). The Siesta Village case was decided earlier this year by the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal which held that a Texas law which allows Texas retailers to ship wine directly to Texas consumers, but forbids out-of-state retailers from doing so, is constitutional and not a violation of the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The plaintiff in the case, which represents the interests of a nationwide coalition of wine retailers, has argued that in the wake of the 2005 Supreme Court decision in Granholm v. Heald which held that states states may not favor in-state wineries in allowing their direct shipment of wine to consumers while forbidding direct shipment of wine to such same consumers by out-of-state wineries, similar laws favoring in-state wine retailers over out-of-state wine retailers should also be struck down. The issue of direct shipment by retailers presents certain distinct legal nuances when compared with direct shipment by wineries, so it is possible the Supreme Court may decide to revisit the issue in this context. This could be especially interesting in light of the change in composition of the Court since 2005.

Stay tuned ….

TTB Seeking Comments on Clarifying Use of Various Winemaking Terms

12/03/10

TTB has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking input from industry concerning whether certain winemaking terms are understood by consumers to convey specific information and whether TTB should define how such terms may be used on wine labels and in advertising. Some of the terms being considered for more specific regulatory definition by TTB include “estate,” “vineyard,” “ranch” and “reserve.” This should be of particular concern to brand owners since greater regulatory definition could require that they remove these terms from their trademarks and trade names necessitating the filing of new trademark applications, fictitious business name statements, ABC license applications and COLAs.

The public has until January 3, 2011 to submit comments. The full text of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking may be found here:

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-27737.pdf