Sparkling wine made by bottle-fermentation can properly only be called "Champagne" if it originates from the the designated area of the Champagne district of France and this has long been written into the Law protecting names of origin. However, the increase in demand for Champagne worldwide has meant that some French Champagne houses are now looking to buy land in Southeast England which share the same sol as Champagne and, following the general increase in world temperatures, now has a similar average temperature to that enjoyed by Champagne 25 years ago.

However, English winemakers are now producing sparkling wines in ever-increasing quantities, several of which have beaten French Champagnes in worldwide competition. However, they are not allowed to call their wines "Champagnes" and much ingenuity has been shown by producers in finding good names for their wines. Ridgeview Vineyard, whose Bloomsbury 2002 was named Best Sparkling Wine in the World at the International Wine and Spirit Competition 2005, has named their sparkling wines "Merret" Christopher Merret (an Englishman) who described the process of making sparkling wine in 1662, 30 years before Dom Perignon. http://www.ridgeview.co.uk/

So the question must be, will the French relax their name of origin claims and allow sparkling wine produced by a French Champagne house to be called "Champagne" (and therefore, by extension, to allow English producers the same right) or will they call their wines "Merret" (which name has been registered by Ridgeview, so they would need to plead their case)? Or will they all be called something else?

They could possibly used the French generic term for sparkling wine, crémant. With the price of French champagne being what it is in the States, I've started to buy cheaper bottles of prosecco and crémant. The Germans use Sekt as their generic term for sparking wines.

Of course, the US has studiously ignored these naming and branding claims from abroad: e.g., many wineries in the States produce champagne. I approve of the legal protection of regional name control. I just wish the US government did this with the same way they pursue intellectual property laws.

[Addendum: I forgot to mention blanquette which is found in the area of Limoux (in the SW of France). It's good and cheap , too. It's production predates champagne; it was first mentioned in texts of the mid-16th century.]

This message has been edited. Last edited by: zmježd,

Yes. I had noticed the USA's disdain for the laws about names of origin myself!

Another name that is commonly used here for sparkling wines, primarily Spanish although it is sometimes used for others nowadays, is "cava".

I'd not heard of "blanquette"; it would seems that even predates Merret's 17th century presentation to the Royal Society.

quote:

Another name that is commonly used here for sparkling wines, primarily Spanish although it is sometimes used for others nowadays, is "cava".

I'd hardly seen it used until recently, but wine writers often use it nowadays to refer to sparkling wines that don't qualify for the name 'Champagne', mostly French and English, although I have seen it applied to wine from other countries as well.

quote:

I had noticed the USA's disdain for the laws about names of origin myself!

"Disdain" is rather strong, wouldn't you say? What are other examples? Is it only concerning wines? If so, I can live with that.

There aren't too many registered names of origin apart from wine (although there are a few, including cheese and beer). However the USA has signed an 82-page agreement with the EU which,essentially, says that they will not use EU registered wine names (of which Champagne is the most obvious) but, although the agreement was signed nearly two years ago I doubt that many in the USA are even aware of its existence. Full details here http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/site/en/com...com2005_0547en01.pdf

Anheuser Busch were also in trouble with the Law since Budweis is now a registered name of origin and is restricted to the Budvar company and they were complaining that this affected their use of their trademark. It's a bit legalistic and complex but for those who are interested there are again more details here. http://www.managingip.com/CountryReport.aspx?CountryID=54

There is a full list of the EU protected names here http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/qual/en/1bbab_en.htm and I suspect that there will be an increase in protected names over the years.

I struggle between our language evolving (such as saying "kleenex" for "tissue") and the copyright laws that z cites. I tend to think language evolves and that's why sparkling wine, for example, is sometimes called "Champagne."

Along these lines, I ordered a glass of sparkling wine tonight (I am at a conference), and a server (not my waiter) came back to our table calling it "Champagne." It was all very confusing because the person I had dinner with immediately sent it back, assertively saying that nobody at our table had ordered "Champagne." So I suppose sometimes it can be confusing. [BTW, I did eventually get my sparkling wine. ]

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

Champagne is a kind of sparkling wine but not all sparkling wine is Champagne.

Similarly Kleenex is a tissue but not all tissue are Kleenex. As not all ballpoint pens are Biros, all vacuum cleaners Hoovers, all vacuum flasks Thermos and all self-adhesive tape Scotch.

Registered names of origin are similar to registered trade marks in that sense, although, as you suggest, trade names can, and often do, become generics - often to the annoyance of the trade name owners.

Hi Rich

Why aren't all ballpoints biros

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=biro&r=66

Aha! edited to indicate that if you use the cap, then it's a Biro biro

Making this post a BIRO Biro biro, bro

http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/Biro

This message has been edited. Last edited by: dalehileman,

The first workable ballpoint pen was invented by Laslo Biro and his brother and they gave their name to the firm they founded. But all ballpoints aren't Biros - regardless of what dictionary.com says.

If all inventions took the name of the original inventor then all aircraft would be called stringfellows (or maybe montgofiers); all light-bulbs swans and all bicycles macmillans. Some inventions have taken their inventor's name, which has then become a generic, but most have not.

That's my point, though, Richard. I see it as language evolving, just as "gay" came to mean "homosexual," which I know you don't agree with.

If someone wants a kleenex, everyone knows that they mean a tissue, which could include Puffs or any other kind. I will say, though, that if someone asked me for a biro, I'd not understand. Bic would be more common here.

I think we are agreeing here. Few inventors have been lucky enough for their names to become the generic term. Biro is one such - but not everywhere. Bic is the the largest manufacturer of ballpoint pens so it's not all that surprising that in some countries is has become a generic. My only surprise is that the USA is one such since (whisper the fact) Bic is a French company, founded in 1945,by Marcel BICH!

I'd assume that often it's down to market penetration. Pens made by Biro were probably the most often seen here 40-50 years ago when ballpoint pens were relatively new. Those by Bic weren't so frequent. Nowadays Bic pens are far more common; in fact, I'm not even sure that Biros are still sold here. I don't think Biro sold many (if any) pens in the US; they were ripped off by a guy named Reynolds and sold as the Reynolds Rocket.

Similarly, as we've discussed before, Hoover vacuum cleaners had a large market share here and the brand name became a generic. In the USA, however, it didn't, probably because of stiffer competition from the likes of Electrolux, despite Hoover being an American company.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: arnie,

One of my favorite genericizations of a trademarked brand is aspirin for acetyl salicylic acid. Bayer, in Germany, in 1899, tried to patent the process and trademark the name. There were arguments of prior art, acetyl salicylic acid having been invented by the Swiss chemist Gerhardt, about half a century earlier. World War One also contributed to the craziness, because Bayer (and many other German corporations) lost their intellectual property rights after the Armistice. In the USA and some other countries, aspirin is a generic term.

The zip fastener was originally a trade name but I believe it's now a generic.

Oh, and returning to the sparkling wine topic, today is my wife's birthday and we had a very nice meal in Brighton, accompanied by a bottle of Merret, as produced by Ridgeview.

A very fine, fruity and full-bodied sparkling wine; I am not surprised that it won that supreme accolade a year or two back.

You will be quite unsurprised to learn that the waiter had not the slightest idea of Merret's claim to fame or of the history of sparkling wines.

I'm also quite unsurprised that you had occasion to discuss the history of wine nomenclature with the waiter.

To be fair to the lad (for that's all he was) he was from the Penal Colonies. And, to give him credit, favoured Cooper's beers above all others from that bibulously-deprived country.

But I do not apologise for asking for English wine in an English restaurant; in any other wine-producing country in the world a restaurant would offer a choice of their home-produced wines.

Are there any Penal Colonies left? Which was (were?) around still when the lad was born?

I believe Richard is having one of his little jests and suspect the lad was simply Australian, as are many working in bars and restaurants in London and the South East.

quote:

I believe Richard is having one of his little jests and suspect the lad was simply Australian

We sent them all our convicted felons; they've sent us Foster's lager.

I don't know who's come off worse ;(

My favourite story about trademarked names involves Paul Simon and his '70's hit song Kodachrome. (Can't quite remember where I got this, but maybe TIME magazine.) The song hit the airwaves and the crap hit the fan in the Eastman Kodak boardroom...(I can hear it now...."We'll sue his ass off!!")...until some junior board member who was a little more hip to the value of popular exposure among the younger crowd pointed out that Paul Simon was so popular that the company probably couldn't afford to hire him to promote their products..and here he was doin' it for free! Kodak eventually reached and agreement that Simon would acknowledge on album covers the Kodak ownership of the trademark.
Wikipedia says that the song never became a hit in Britain because no agreement for that market was reached and the song couldn't be played on radio (AKKKK!...wireless).