For many champagne is simply a sparkling wine. If the Californians make a good sparkling wine and want to market it as Californian Champagne why shouldn't they?.
Err, because (a) it isn't champagne, and (b) the only possible reason for wanting to use the name is to sell off the back of the reputation of the real thing.
I'm frankly gobsmacked that anyone disagrees with this. I can only assume it's an attitude of 'this is an EU thing so it must be bad by definition'.
For me, nothing to do with the EU but I am not a fan of additional IP rights. We had that absurd case recently where the NT was trying to force a manufacturer of outdoor clothes wear because they claimed the name of a hill. We had the ridiculous case involving the supermarket Iceland.
Inventions should be protected and encouraged. Geography, not so much.
So you'd be cool with a wine from Algeria being sold as Gevrey-Chambertin (as used to happen in the bad old days)? Or apple juice mixed with industrial alcohol being sold as Scotch Whisky?
If the former brought the price of my favourite Gevs down, absolutely
More seriously, the second isn’t an IP issue, it’s a safety issue, surely?
On the Gorgonzola note - it simply is what a lot of people say when they mean gooey Italian blue cheese
For many champagne is simply a sparkling wine. If the Californians make a good sparkling wine and want to market it as Californian Champagne why shouldn't they?.
Err, because (a) it isn't champagne, and (b) the only possible reason for wanting to use the name is to sell off the back of the reputation of the real thing.
I'm frankly gobsmacked that anyone disagrees with this. I can only assume it's an attitude of 'this is an EU thing so it must be bad by definition'.
For me, nothing to do with the EU but I am not a fan of additional IP rights. We had that absurd case recently where the NT was trying to force a manufacturer of outdoor clothes wear because they claimed the name of a hill. We had the ridiculous case involving the supermarket Iceland.
Inventions should be protected and encouraged. Geography, not so much.
So you'd be cool with a wine from Algeria being sold as Gevrey-Chambertin (as used to happen in the bad old days)? Or apple juice mixed with industrial alcohol being sold as Scotch Whisky?
I'm not certain I'd be happy with apple juice mixed with industrial alcohol being sold as Whisky. Can that happen today? Whether its marketed as Scotch or Whisky doesn't bother me in the slightest.
On days like this you have to love Cricket. England have worked so hard, they deserve to be back in this game. India must be gutted. Let's hope England aren't exhausted.
They look set to end up with a similar total, but were 86-6 and 189-6. Amazing stuff.
For many champagne is simply a sparkling wine. If the Californians make a good sparkling wine and want to market it as Californian Champagne why shouldn't they?.
Err, because (a) it isn't champagne, and (b) the only possible reason for wanting to use the name is to sell off the back of the reputation of the real thing.
I'm frankly gobsmacked that anyone disagrees with this. I can only assume it's an attitude of 'this is an EU thing so it must be bad by definition'.
For me, nothing to do with the EU but I am not a fan of additional IP rights. We had that absurd case recently where the NT was trying to force a manufacturer of outdoor clothes wear because they claimed the name of a hill. We had the ridiculous case involving the supermarket Iceland.
Inventions should be protected and encouraged. Geography, not so much.
So you'd be cool with a wine from Algeria being sold as Gevrey-Chambertin (as used to happen in the bad old days)? Or apple juice mixed with industrial alcohol being sold as Scotch Whisky?
The French are the most serious about this kind of thing.
In 1944 they refused to advance against the Germans in Boudreaux for fear of damaging the vineyards.
Then a young lieutenant realised the Germans must have been equally nervous about damaging the grape harvest - all their defences were in the vineyards of inferior vines!
I've addressed this in my previous post, but protectionism is a bad thing regardless of who's behind it. I'm not especially bothered, I'm prepared to recognise origin names as part of a trade deal. But I'm not prepared to pander to French vinyards without a deal. There's a price to recognising it and that is getting a deal, why you're prepared to sacrifice getting a deal and giving the EU what they want without one is beyond me.
I didn't say that. I agree that as a matter of tactics it might be worth pretending that we wouldn't guarantee to respect the denominations without a trade deal. There are also genuine issues about new denominations, and also getting ours recognised by the EU. None of that alters the fact that it's a good thing that consumers are not being defrauded by the misuse of these names.
Yes a quick google informed me that a recent filing means that West Country Farmhouse Cheddar is an exception. Although as someone once said, adding the word "Farmhouse" to anything adds 20% to the sale price.
Yes, unfortunately 'Cheddar', 'Camembert' and 'Mozzarella' were considered to be past saving as meaningful names. So a lot of people buy what they think is Mozzarella, and are being defrauded; it might bear no relation whatsoever to the real, delicious, thing unless it's Mozzarella di Bufala Campana (the EU-protected denomination).
Protecting us from these frauds, as far as is practical, is unambiguously one of the really good things the EU has done, with zero downside.
Lack of innovation and more expensive food are two downsides...
By 'more expensive', you mean low-quality foods fraudulently sold off the back of the reputation of the real thing.
As for innovation: quite the opposite. If producers can't steal and traduce the reputations of existing products, they need to establish their own quality reputations - English sparkling wine being the perfect example.
The protectionist cachet adds value above and beyond the product; it doesn’t have to be good, just from X.
It therefore puts an artificial floor under the prices that natural market competition would eradicate.
Bonkers. Champagne is a region, famous for its sparkling wine. Hence, by calling any sparkling wine champagne its competitors are trading off its name. Would you support the deregulation of, say, Scotch Whisky, so anyone can call their whisky, Scotch?
On days like this you have to love Cricket. England have worked so hard, they deserve to be back in this game. India must be gutted. Let's hope England aren't exhausted.
They look set to end up with a similar total, but were 86-6 and 189-6. Amazing stuff.
Just got to get through till stumps.
Agonising viewing currently.
Don't worry it is two nightwatchmen.
In order to be a decent nightwatchman you need to bat a few overs without getting out. Any evidence these two can?
On days like this you have to love Cricket. England have worked so hard, they deserve to be back in this game. India must be gutted. Let's hope England aren't exhausted.
They look set to end up with a similar total, but were 86-6 and 189-6. Amazing stuff.
I've addressed this in my previous post, but protectionism is a bad thing regardless of who's behind it. I'm not especially bothered, I'm prepared to recognise origin names as part of a trade deal. But I'm not prepared to pander to French vinyards without a deal. There's a price to recognising it and that is getting a deal, why you're prepared to sacrifice getting a deal and giving the EU what they want without one is beyond me.
I didn't say that. I agree that as a matter of tactics it might be worth pretending that we wouldn't guarantee to respect the denominations without a trade deal. There are also genuine issues about new denominations, and also getting ours recognised by the EU. None of that alters the fact that it's a good thing that consumers are not being defrauded by the misuse of these names.
Am I defrauded when I buy an Irish cheddar? Am I defrauded when I buy a Dyson hoover?
How am I defrauded if I voluntarily and knowingly buy a Californian Champagne?
For many champagne is simply a sparkling wine. If the Californians make a good sparkling wine and want to market it as Californian Champagne why shouldn't they?.
Err, because (a) it isn't champagne, and (b) the only possible reason for wanting to use the name is to sell off the back of the reputation of the real thing.
I'm frankly gobsmacked that anyone disagrees with this. I can only assume it's an attitude of 'this is an EU thing so it must be bad by definition'.
For me, nothing to do with the EU but I am not a fan of additional IP rights. We had that absurd case recently where the NT was trying to force a manufacturer of outdoor clothes wear because they claimed the name of a hill. We had the ridiculous case involving the supermarket Iceland.
Inventions should be protected and encouraged. Geography, not so much.
So you'd be cool with a wine from Algeria being sold as Gevrey-Chambertin (as used to happen in the bad old days)? Or apple juice mixed with industrial alcohol being sold as Scotch Whisky?
If the former brought the price of my favourite Gevs down, absolutely
More seriously, the second isn’t an IP issue, it’s a safety issue, surely?
On the Gorgonzola note - it simply is what a lot of people say when they mean gooey Italian blue cheese
Sorry but this is bonkers on stilts. Protecting the rights of origin is just good sense, both for producer and consumer.
For many champagne is simply a sparkling wine. If the Californians make a good sparkling wine and want to market it as Californian Champagne why shouldn't they?.
Err, because (a) it isn't champagne, and (b) the only possible reason for wanting to use the name is to sell off the back of the reputation of the real thing.
I'm frankly gobsmacked that anyone disagrees with this. I can only assume it's an attitude of 'this is an EU thing so it must be bad by definition'.
For me, nothing to do with the EU but I am not a fan of additional IP rights. We had that absurd case recently where the NT was trying to force a manufacturer of outdoor clothes wear because they claimed the name of a hill. We had the ridiculous case involving the supermarket Iceland.
Inventions should be protected and encouraged. Geography, not so much.
So you'd be cool with a wine from Algeria being sold as Gevrey-Chambertin (as used to happen in the bad old days)? Or apple juice mixed with industrial alcohol being sold as Scotch Whisky?
If the former brought the price of my favourite Gevs down, absolutely
More seriously, the second isn’t an IP issue, it’s a safety issue, surely?
On the Gorgonzola note - it simply is what a lot of people say when they mean gooey Italian blue cheese
Sorry but this is bonkers on stilts. Protecting the rights of origin is just good sense, both for producer and consumer.
So which American rights of origin do we currently protect?
Err, because (a) it isn't champagne, and (b) the only possible reason for wanting to use the name is to sell off the back of the reputation of the real thing.
I'm frankly gobsmacked that anyone disagrees with this. I can only assume it's an attitude of 'this is an EU thing so it must be bad by definition'.
For me, nothing to do with the EU but I am not a fan of additional IP rights. We had that absurd case recently where the NT was trying to force a manufacturer of outdoor clothes wear because they claimed the name of a hill. We had the ridiculous case involving the supermarket Iceland.
Inventions should be protected and encouraged. Geography, not so much.
So you'd be cool with a wine from Algeria being sold as Gevrey-Chambertin (as used to happen in the bad old days)? Or apple juice mixed with industrial alcohol being sold as Scotch Whisky?
Tbh I had never heard of Gevrey-Chambertin but on googling I see that it is a Pinot noir wine from a commune of that name. I would be happy for someone to sell wine of that name provided it was clearly labelled that it was made in Devon, for example. It would tell me, as a consumer, that it was a wine of a similar type. I would know that it was not the original now that I know what the original was. I could make an informed choice (at least as informed as my ignorance of fine wine allows).
I would be equally happy to have a whisky (even without the "e") sold as such provided it was clearly labelled that it was made in Holland. Obviously apple juice with industrial alcohol could not be sold as whisky because it isn't, Scotch or otherwise. Again, I get to make an informed choice.
These geographical restrictions are there to inhibit competition not increase it. They also hide a multitude of sins. Even I know that not every Chablis is particularly good and yet I am invited to pay a premium for it because it has the cachet of the name.
On days like this you have to love Cricket. England have worked so hard, they deserve to be back in this game. India must be gutted. Let's hope England aren't exhausted.
They look set to end up with a similar total, but were 86-6 and 189-6. Amazing stuff.
Just got to get through till stumps.
Agonising viewing currently.
Don't worry it is two nightwatchmen.
In order to be a decent nightwatchman you need to bat a few overs without getting out. Any evidence these two can?
They survived this evening. Somewhat surprisingly.
Yes a quick google informed me that a recent filing means that West Country Farmhouse Cheddar is an exception. Although as someone once said, adding the word "Farmhouse" to anything adds 20% to the sale price.
Yes, unfortunately 'Cheddar', 'Camembert' and 'Mozzarella' were considered to be past saving as meaningful names. So a lot of people buy what they think is Mozzarella, and are being defrauded; it might bear no relation whatsoever to the real, delicious, thing unless it's Mozzarella di Bufala Campana (the EU-protected denomination).
Protecting us from these frauds, as far as is practical, is unambiguously one of the really good things the EU has done, with zero downside.
Lack of innovation and more expensive food are two downsides...
By 'more expensive', you mean low-quality foods fraudulently sold off the back of the reputation of the real thing.
As for innovation: quite the opposite. If producers can't steal and traduce the reputations of existing products, they need to establish their own quality reputations - English sparkling wine being the perfect example.
The protectionist cachet adds value above and beyond the product; it doesn’t have to be good, just from X.
It therefore puts an artificial floor under the prices that natural market competition would eradicate.
Bonkers. Champagne is a region, famous for its sparkling wine. Hence, by calling any sparkling wine champagne its competitors are trading off its name. Would you support the deregulation of, say, Scotch Whisky, so anyone can call their whisky, Scotch?
I’m not in the least bit bothered.
Many geographical terms are simply used as shorthand.
Err, because (a) it isn't champagne, and (b) the only possible reason for wanting to use the name is to sell off the back of the reputation of the real thing.
I'm frankly gobsmacked that anyone disagrees with this. I can only assume it's an attitude of 'this is an EU thing so it must be bad by definition'.
For me, nothing to do with the EU but I am not a fan of additional IP rights. We had that absurd case recently where the NT was trying to force a manufacturer of outdoor clothes wear because they claimed the name of a hill. We had the ridiculous case involving the supermarket Iceland.
Inventions should be protected and encouraged. Geography, not so much.
So you'd be cool with a wine from Algeria being sold as Gevrey-Chambertin (as used to happen in the bad old days)? Or apple juice mixed with industrial alcohol being sold as Scotch Whisky?
Tbh I had never heard of Gevrey-Chambertin but on googling I see that it is a Pinot noir wine from a commune of that name. I would be happy for someone to sell wine of that name provided it was clearly labelled that it was made in Devon, for example. It would tell me, as a consumer, that it was a wine of a similar type. I would know that it was not the original now that I know what the original was. I could make an informed choice (at least as informed as my ignorance of fine wine allows).
I would be equally happy to have a whisky (even without the "e") sold as such provided it was clearly labelled that it was made in Holland. Obviously apple juice with industrial alcohol could not be sold as whisky because it isn't, Scotch or otherwise. Again, I get to make an informed choice.
These geographical restrictions are there to inhibit competition not increase it. They also hide a multitude of sins. Even I know that not every Chablis is particularly good and yet I am invited to pay a premium for it because it has the cachet of the name.
It is said (how truly I do not know) that Napoleon loved Chambertin wine so much he ordered his soldiers to salute every time they passed the vineyard where it was made.
I don't think he would have done that for wine from Devon...
Ruth Davidson - I think it's unlikely anyone much would accept her being catapulted into the Lords, and assuming a cabinet role. I'm particularly skeptical that the PM would go for that. To then go further and have her waved through as the heir apparent and a clear stitch-up of a constituency so that she could get out of the Lords. I've heard some tales...
However, she can stand for Westminster. She'll probably win a seat, and there's half a chance that she'll get some sort of a government role - that'll be at best something middle-ranking though. She then has to do well at that (politically well). She has to convince others.
She could be the next Tory leader therefore, but that rather depends on May sticking around for some years.
Next Tory leader but one, I'd have her slightly shorter. Long odds still though.
The Labour equivalent is David Millband - it's almost unimaginable that he can find a way back to be the next Labour leader, unless Corbyn is around for a long time. Next-leader-but-one, slightly better chance.
For many champagne is simply a sparkling wine. If the Californians make a good sparkling wine and want to market it as Californian Champagne why shouldn't they?.
Err, because (a) it isn't champagne, and (b) the only possible reason for wanting to use the name is to sell off the back of the reputation of the real thing.
I'm frankly gobsmacked that anyone disagrees with this. I can only assume it's an attitude of 'this is an EU thing so it must be bad by definition'.
For me, nothing to do with the EU but I am not a fan of additional IP rights. We had that absurd case recently where the NT was trying to force a manufacturer of outdoor clothes wear because they claimed the name of a hill. We had the ridiculous case involving the supermarket Iceland.
Inventions should be protected and encouraged. Geography, not so much.
So you'd be cool with a wine from Algeria being sold as Gevrey-Chambertin (as used to happen in the bad old days)? Or apple juice mixed with industrial alcohol being sold as Scotch Whisky?
If the former brought the price of my favourite Gevs down, absolutely
More seriously, the second isn’t an IP issue, it’s a safety issue, surely?
On the Gorgonzola note - it simply is what a lot of people say when they mean gooey Italian blue cheese
Sorry but this is bonkers on stilts. Protecting the rights of origin is just good sense, both for producer and consumer.
I've addressed this in my previous post, but protectionism is a bad thing regardless of who's behind it. I'm not especially bothered, I'm prepared to recognise origin names as part of a trade deal. But I'm not prepared to pander to French vinyards without a deal. There's a price to recognising it and that is getting a deal, why you're prepared to sacrifice getting a deal and giving the EU what they want without one is beyond me.
I didn't say that. I agree that as a matter of tactics it might be worth pretending that we wouldn't guarantee to respect the denominations without a trade deal. There are also genuine issues about new denominations, and also getting ours recognised by the EU. None of that alters the fact that it's a good thing that consumers are not being defrauded by the misuse of these names.
Am I defrauded when I buy an Irish cheddar? Am I defrauded when I buy a Dyson hoover?
How am I defrauded if I voluntarily and knowingly buy a Californian Champagne?
I've addressed this in my previous post, but protectionism is a bad thing regardless of who's behind it. I'm not especially bothered, I'm prepared to recognise origin names as part of a trade deal. But I'm not prepared to pander to French vinyards without a deal. There's a price to recognising it and that is getting a deal, why you're prepared to sacrifice getting a deal and giving the EU what they want without one is beyond me.
I didn't say that. I agree that as a matter of tactics it might be worth pretending that we wouldn't guarantee to respect the denominations without a trade deal. There are also genuine issues about new denominations, and also getting ours recognised by the EU. None of that alters the fact that it's a good thing that consumers are not being defrauded by the misuse of these names.
Am I defrauded when I buy an Irish cheddar? Am I defrauded when I buy a Dyson hoover?
How am I defrauded if I voluntarily and knowingly buy a Californian Champagne?
Point of order – you have never bought the latter. Hoover is a trademark.
Err, because (a) it isn't champagne, and (b) the only possible reason for wanting to use the name is to sell off the back of the reputation of the real thing.
I'm frankly gobsmacked that anyone disagrees with this. I can only assume it's an attitude of 'this is an EU thing so it must be bad by definition'.
For me, nothing to do with the EU but I am not a fan of additional IP rights. We had that absurd case recently where the NT was trying to force a manufacturer of outdoor clothes wear because they claimed the name of a hill. We had the ridiculous case involving the supermarket Iceland.
Inventions should be protected and encouraged. Geography, not so much.
So you'd be cool with a wine from Algeria being sold as Gevrey-Chambertin (as used to happen in the bad old days)? Or apple juice mixed with industrial alcohol being sold as Scotch Whisky?
Tbh I had never heard of Gevrey-Chambertin but on googling I see that it is a Pinot noir wine from a commune of that name. I would be happy for someone to sell wine of that name provided it was clearly labelled that it was made in Devon, for example. It would tell me, as a consumer, that it was a wine of a similar type. I would know that it was not the original now that I know what the original was. I could make an informed choice (at least as informed as my ignorance of fine wine allows).
I would be equally happy to have a whisky (even without the "e") sold as such provided it was clearly labelled that it was made in Holland. Obviously apple juice with industrial alcohol could not be sold as whisky because it isn't, Scotch or otherwise. Again, I get to make an informed choice.
These geographical restrictions are there to inhibit competition not increase it. They also hide a multitude of sins. Even I know that not every Chablis is particularly good and yet I am invited to pay a premium for it because it has the cachet of the name.
It is said (how truly I do not know) that Napoleon loved Chambertin wine so much he ordered his soldiers to salute every time they passed the vineyard where it was made.
I don't think he would have done that for wine from Devon...
I'm pretty sure he would have liked his soldiers to have the opportunity though!
Err, because (a) it isn't champagne, and (b) the only possible reason for wanting to use the name is to sell off the back of the reputation of the real thing.
I'm frankly gobsmacked that anyone disagrees with this. I can only assume it's an attitude of 'this is an EU thing so it must be bad by definition'.
For me, nothing to do with the EU but I am not a fan of additional IP rights. We had that absurd case recently where the NT was trying to force a manufacturer of outdoor clothes wear because they claimed the name of a hill. We had the ridiculous case involving the supermarket Iceland.
Inventions should be protected and encouraged. Geography, not so much.
So you'd be cool with a wine from Algeria being sold as Gevrey-Chambertin (as used to happen in the bad old days)? Or apple juice mixed with industrial alcohol being sold as Scotch Whisky?
Tbh I had never heard of Gevrey-Chambertin but on googling I see that it is a Pinot noir wine from a commune of that name. I would be happy for someone to sell wine of that name provided it was clearly labelled that it was made in Devon, for example. It would tell me, as a consumer, that it was a wine of a similar type. I would know that it was not the original now that I know what the original was. I could make an informed choice (at least as informed as my ignorance of fine wine allows).
I would be equally happy to have a whisky (even without the "e") sold as such provided it was clearly labelled that it was made in Holland. Obviously apple juice with industrial alcohol could not be sold as whisky because it isn't, Scotch or otherwise. Again, I get to make an informed choice.
These geographical restrictions are there to inhibit competition not increase it. They also hide a multitude of sins. Even I know that not every Chablis is particularly good and yet I am invited to pay a premium for it because it has the cachet of the name.
It is said (how truly I do not know) that Napoleon loved Chambertin wine so much he ordered his soldiers to salute every time they passed the vineyard where it was made.
I don't think he would have done that for wine from Devon...
I'm pretty sure he would have liked his soldiers to have the opportunity though!
You learn something every day. That people actively want to be sold misleadingly-labelled food and wine is something I never expected to find!
We are not misled if it is clearly labelled Richard, that is the point. Not labelling it clearly is fraudulent.
You said upthread that you'd never heard of Gevrey Chambertin. So if the name could legally be used by any producer of red wine, say a bulk producer in Bulgaria, then the situation could arise where someone tells you that Gevrey Chambertin is a very fine wine (which it generally is), and you might then buy the Bulgarian rip-off, not knowing that it bore zero resemblance to the real thing, perhaps not even being made of the same grape variety. If that's not a case of the consumer being misled, what is?
You learn something every day. That people actively want to be sold misleadingly-labelled food and wine is something I never expected to find!
We are not misled if it is clearly labelled Richard, that is the point. Not labelling it clearly is fraudulent.
You said upthread that you'd never heard of Gevrey Chambertin. So if the name could legally be used by any old producer of red wine, say a bulk producer in Bulgaria, then the situation could arise where someone tells you that Gevrey Chambertin is a very fine wine (which it generally is), and you might then buy the Bulgarian rip-off, not knowing that it bore zero resemblance to the real thing, perhaps not even being made of the same grape variety. If that's not a case of the consumer being misled, what is?
Err, because (a) it isn't champagne, and (b) the only possible reason for wanting to use the name is to sell off the back of the reputation of the real thing.
I'm frankly gobsmacked that anyone disagrees with this. I can only assume it's an attitude of 'this is an EU thing so it must be bad by definition'.
For me, nothing to do with the EU but I am not a fan of additional IP rights. We had that absurd case recently where the NT was trying to force a manufacturer of outdoor clothes wear because they claimed the name of a hill. We had the ridiculous case involving the supermarket Iceland.
Inventions should be protected and encouraged. Geography, not so much.
So you'd be cool with a wine from Algeria being sold as Gevrey-Chambertin (as used to happen in the bad old days)? Or apple juice mixed with industrial alcohol being sold as Scotch Whisky?
Tbh I had never heard of Gevrey-Chambertin but on googling I see that it is a Pinot noir wine from a commune of that name. I would be happy for someone to sell wine of that name provided it was clearly labelled that it was made in Devon, for example. It would tell me, as a consumer, that it was a wine of a similar type. I would know that it was not the original now that I know what the original was. I could make an informed choice (at least as informed as my ignorance of fine wine allows).
I would be equally happy to have a whisky (even without the "e") sold as such provided it was clearly labelled that it was made in Holland. Obviously apple juice with industrial alcohol could not be sold as whisky because it isn't, Scotch or otherwise. Again, I get to make an informed choice.
These geographical restrictions are there to inhibit competition not increase it. They also hide a multitude of sins. Even I know that not every Chablis is particularly good and yet I am invited to pay a premium for it because it has the cachet of the name.
It is said (how truly I do not know) that Napoleon loved Chambertin wine so much he ordered his soldiers to salute every time they passed the vineyard where it was made.
I don't think he would have done that for wine from Devon...
The Sharpham Rose is very fine, I'm told. Made down the road from me, on the Sharpham estate just outside Totnes....
(Also, for the wine drinkers, there is an exceptional Gavi for £8.50 from the Co-op of all places - the tip-off from the Co-op's wine buyer himself.)
You learn something every day. That people actively want to be sold misleadingly-labelled food and wine is something I never expected to find!
I don’t think they’re saying that. When a product has a name that has become generic “Hoover” or “Cheddar” or “Champagne” then provided it’s labelled accurately - “Californian Champagne”, “Irish Cheddar” how is that misleading?
In many countries the market leader becomes the category generic descriptor - so “Huggies Pampers” for example is simpler to say and easier to remember than “Huggies disposable diaper”. In some ways it’s a sign of success.
What surprises me is your happiness at the EU insisting on resolving something that belongs in trade negotiations while refusing to conduct trade negotiations. You have been a consistent critic of their hypocrisy in this.
"Hoover: owned by Hoover. Should be called: vacuum cleaner."
It's debatable. A number of sites including the BBC list hoover as a generic term.
A number are clearly-cut legally generic now, like aspirin in America or sellotape here. That article you linked lists a number of others such as yo-yo, thermos or escalator.
Yes a quick google informed me that a recent filing means that West Country Farmhouse Cheddar is an exception. Although as someone once said, adding the word "Farmhouse" to anything adds 20% to the sale price.
Yes, unfortunately 'Cheddar', 'Camembert' and 'Mozzarella' were considered to be past saving as meaningful names. So a lot of people buy what they think is Mozzarella, and are being defrauded; it might bear no relation whatsoever to the real, delicious, thing unless it's Mozzarella di Bufala Campana (the EU-protected denomination).
Protecting us from these frauds, as far as is practical, is unambiguously one of the really good things the EU has done, with zero downside.
Lack of innovation and more expensive food are two downsides...
By 'more expensive', you mean low-quality foods fraudulently sold off the back of the reputation of the real thing.
As for innovation: quite the opposite. If producers can't steal and traduce the reputations of existing products, they need to establish their own quality reputations - English sparkling wine being the perfect example.
The protectionist cachet adds value above and beyond the product; it doesn’t have to be good, just from X.
It therefore puts an artificial floor under the prices that natural market competition would eradicate.
Bonkers. Champagne is a region, famous for its sparkling wine. Hence, by calling any sparkling wine champagne its competitors are trading off its name. Would you support the deregulation of, say, Scotch Whisky, so anyone can call their whisky, Scotch?
I’m not in the least bit bothered.
Many geographical terms are simply used as shorthand.
The Indians do quite a few “Scotch” whiskeys. A Scotsman might describe the taste as absolute pishwater.
You learn something every day. That people actively want to be sold misleadingly-labelled food and wine is something I never expected to find!
We are not misled if it is clearly labelled Richard, that is the point. Not labelling it clearly is fraudulent.
You said upthread that you'd never heard of Gevrey Chambertin. So if the name could legally be used by any producer of red wine, say a bulk producer in Bulgaria, then the situation could arise where someone tells you that Gevrey Chambertin is a very fine wine (which it generally is), and you might then buy the Bulgarian rip-off, not knowing that it bore zero resemblance to the real thing, perhaps not even being made of the same grape variety. If that's not a case of the consumer being misled, what is?
It is. But it’s not directly related to GI - it’s “fraud”.
You learn something every day. That people actively want to be sold misleadingly-labelled food and wine is something I never expected to find!
I don’t think they’re saying that. When a product has a name that has become generic “Hoover” or “Cheddar” or “Champagne” then provided it’s labelled accurately - “Californian Champagne”, “Irish Cheddar” how is that misleading?
In many countries the market leader becomes the category generic descriptor - so “Huggies Pampers” for example is simpler to say and easier to remember than “Huggies disposable diaper”. In some ways it’s a sign of success.
What surprises me is your happiness at the EU insisting on resolving something that belongs in trade negotiations while refusing to conduct trade negotiations. You have been a consistent critic of their hypocrisy in this.
Champagne has NOT become generic. Sorry that is wrong.
If someone says, "would you like some champagne? it is reasonable and normal to expect what they are serving to be, erm, champagne. Otherwise they would say, would you like some prosecco or English sparkling (the latter often being better than many champagnes anyway)."
Do you offer your dinner guests champagne when it is not?
Yes a quick google informed me that a recent filing means that West Country Farmhouse Cheddar is an exception. Although as someone once said, adding the word "Farmhouse" to anything adds 20% to the sale price.
Yes, unfortunately 'Cheddar', 'Camembert' and 'Mozzarella' were considered to be past saving as meaningful names. So a lot of people buy what they think is Mozzarella, and are being defrauded; it might bear no relation whatsoever to the real, delicious, thing unless it's Mozzarella di Bufala Campana (the EU-protected denomination).
Protecting us from these frauds, as far as is practical, is unambiguously one of the really good things the EU has done, with zero downside.
Lack of innovation and more expensive food are two downsides...
By 'more expensive', you mean low-quality foods fraudulently sold off the back of the reputation of the real thing.
As for innovation: quite the opposite. If producers can't steal and traduce the reputations of existing products, they need to establish their own quality reputations - English sparkling wine being the perfect example.
The protectionist cachet adds value above and beyond the product; it doesn’t have to be good, just from X.
It therefore puts an artificial floor under the prices that natural market competition would eradicate.
Bonkers. Champagne is a region, famous for its sparkling wine. Hence, by calling any sparkling wine champagne its competitors are trading off its name. Would you support the deregulation of, say, Scotch Whisky, so anyone can call their whisky, Scotch?
Yes a quick google informed me that a recent filing means that West Country Farmhouse Cheddar is an exception. Although as someone once said, adding the word "Farmhouse" to anything adds 20% to the sale price.
Yes, unfortunately 'Cheddar', 'Camembert' and 'Mozzarella' were considered to be past saving as meaningful names. So a lot of people buy what they think is Mozzarella, and are being defrauded; it might bear no relation whatsoever to the real, delicious, thing unless it's Mozzarella di Bufala Campana (the EU-protected denomination).
Protecting us from these frauds, as far as is practical, is unambiguously one of the really good things the EU has done, with zero downside.
Lack of innovation and more expensive food are two downsides...
By 'more expensive', you mean low-quality foods fraudulently sold off the back of the reputation of the real thing.
As for innovation: quite the opposite. If producers can't steal and traduce the reputations of existing products, they need to establish their own quality reputations - English sparkling wine being the perfect example.
The protectionist cachet adds value above and beyond the product; it doesn’t have to be good, just from X.
It therefore puts an artificial floor under the prices that natural market competition would eradicate.
Bonkers. Champagne is a region, famous for its sparkling wine. Hence, by calling any sparkling wine champagne its competitors are trading off its name. Would you support the deregulation of, say, Scotch Whisky, so anyone can call their whisky, Scotch?
I’m not in the least bit bothered.
Many geographical terms are simply used as shorthand.
The Indians do quite a few “Scotch” whiskeys. A Scotsman might describe the taste as absolute pishwater.
I was once offered – and drank – White Horse 'Scotch' Whisky in Mount Abu.
The Sharpham Rose is very fine, I'm told. Made down the road from me, on the Sharpham estate just outside Totnes....
(Also, for the wine drinkers, there is an exceptional Gavi for £8.50 from the Co-op of all places - the tip-off from the Co-op's wine buyer himself.)
We all know of course that wine from the Gloucestershire/Herefordshire border is the best in the UK as it is among the best in Europe.
Among locals who know about these things there is a suggestion that St Anne's vineyard in Oxenhall near Kempley is actually the best, rather than the Three Choirs at Newent. However, it's difficult enough to get the latter never mind the former.
The Evangelicals who lost their money in Trump's casinos voted for the twice-divorced, serial adulterer who in the past was pro-abortion? There is a serious point which is that if Evangelicals did vote for Trump then it was not on religious grounds, since Trump offends everything Evangelicals would claim to stand for, so the label is misleading in this context. If Evangelicals voted for Trump it was for some other shared characteristic -- their states had lost jobs, or were riddled with prescribed opiates, or something else, but not their religion.
It was the same when they broke for Reagan over Carter: the agnostic divorcé over the guy who taught Sunday School even while President. Religion might provide a convenient label but it is not the important driver of votes.
Unless they believed that he might not be an Evangelical but that Hilary and the Democrats were actively hostile to them.
The anti-Hillary explanation does not wash for Evangelical voting because of that thing we all (or at least I usually do) forget, which is that Trump beat all the other Republican candidates in the primaries, almost all of whom would have been a better match on purely religious grounds.
That is the problem with most accounts of how Trump won. They concentrate on how Trump beat Hillary in the electoral college, while skimming over the far harder question of how Trump won the primaries to represent the Republican Party while being opposed to almost everything that party claims to stand for.
Can you show that it was the Evangelical vote that delivered him the primaries? As I recall there was some evidence to suggest it mostly went to Cruz, and that those who voted for Trump did so in the belief that he was more likely to win overall.
Perhaps. I backed Trump on the night but have no explanation, nor have I read a convincing one.
"Hoover: owned by Hoover. Should be called: vacuum cleaner."
It's debatable. A number of sites including the BBC list hoover as a generic term.
A number are clearly-cut legally generic now, like aspirin in America or sellotape here. That article you linked lists a number of others such as yo-yo, thermos or escalator.
What the BBC says on its usage is irrelevant to this discussion.
You were wrong. You cannot sell a Hoover unless it is produced by the Hoover Company.
You learn something every day. That people actively want to be sold misleadingly-labelled food and wine is something I never expected to find!
We are not misled if it is clearly labelled Richard, that is the point. Not labelling it clearly is fraudulent.
You said upthread that you'd never heard of Gevrey Chambertin. So if the name could legally be used by any producer of red wine, say a bulk producer in Bulgaria, then the situation could arise where someone tells you that Gevrey Chambertin is a very fine wine (which it generally is), and you might then buy the Bulgarian rip-off, not knowing that it bore zero resemblance to the real thing, perhaps not even being made of the same grape variety. If that's not a case of the consumer being misled, what is?
It is. But it’s not directly related to GI - it’s “fraud”.
I'm being told that the name shouldn't be protected. So the Bulgarians could claim that Gevrey Chambertin was just a generic term for a full-bodied red wine, and no-one could stop them using the name (which is exactly what used to happen - this is not a theoretical point).
Yes a quick google informed me that a recent filing means that West Country Farmhouse Cheddar is an exception. Although as someone once said, adding the word "Farmhouse" to anything adds 20% to the sale price.
Yes, unfortunately 'Cheddar', 'Camembert' and 'Mozzarella' were considered to be past saving as meaningful names. So a lot of people buy what they think is Mozzarella, and are being defrauded; it might bear no relation whatsoever to the real, delicious, thing unless it's Mozzarella di Bufala Campana (the EU-protected denomination).
Protecting us from these frauds, as far as is practical, is unambiguously one of the really good things the EU has done, with zero downside.
Lack of innovation and more expensive food are two downsides...
By 'more expensive', you mean low-quality foods fraudulently sold off the back of the reputation of the real thing.
As for innovation: quite the opposite. If producers can't steal and traduce the reputations of existing products, they need to establish their own quality reputations - English sparkling wine being the perfect example.
The protectionist cachet adds value above and beyond the product; it doesn’t have to be good, just from X.
It therefore puts an artificial floor under the prices that natural market competition would eradicate.
Bonkers. Champagne is a region, famous for its sparkling wine. Hence, by calling any sparkling wine champagne its competitors are trading off its name. Would you support the deregulation of, say, Scotch Whisky, so anyone can call their whisky, Scotch?
I’m not in the least bit bothered.
Many geographical terms are simply used as shorthand.
The Indians do quite a few “Scotch” whiskeys. A Scotsman might describe the taste as absolute pishwater.
I was once offered – and drank – White Horse 'Scotch' Whisky in Mount Abu.
22 years later, I still haven't recovered.
Do they still make that? I haven't seen it for years.
You learn something every day. That people actively want to be sold misleadingly-labelled food and wine is something I never expected to find!
I don’t think they’re saying that. When a product has a name that has become generic “Hoover” or “Cheddar” or “Champagne” then provided it’s labelled accurately - “Californian Champagne”, “Irish Cheddar” how is that misleading?
In many countries the market leader becomes the category generic descriptor - so “Huggies Pampers” for example is simpler to say and easier to remember than “Huggies disposable diaper”. In some ways it’s a sign of success.
What surprises me is your happiness at the EU insisting on resolving something that belongs in trade negotiations while refusing to conduct trade negotiations. You have been a consistent critic of their hypocrisy in this.
Champagne has NOT become generic. Sorry that is wrong.
If someone says, "would you like some champagne? it is reasonable and normal to expect what they are serving to be, erm, champagne. Otherwise they would say, would you like some prosecco or English sparkling (the latter often being better than many champagnes anyway)."
Do you offer your dinner guests champagne when it is not?
I don’t, but the number of “Champagne Receptions” I’ve been to that featured sparkling wine.....
Yes a quick google informed me that a recent filing means that West Country Farmhouse Cheddar is an exception. Although as someone once said, adding the word "Farmhouse" to anything adds 20% to the sale price.
Yes, unfortunately 'Cheddar', 'Camembert' and 'Mozzarella' were considered to be past saving as meaningful names. So a lot of people buy what they think is Mozzarella, and are being defrauded; it might bear no relation whatsoever to the real, delicious, thing unless it's Mozzarella di Bufala Campana (the EU-protected denomination).
Protecting us from these frauds, as far as is practical, is unambiguously one of the really good things the EU has done, with zero downside.
Lack of innovation and more expensive food are two downsides...
By 'more expensive', you mean low-quality foods fraudulently sold off the back of the reputation of the real thing.
As for innovation: quite the opposite. If producers can't steal and traduce the reputations of existing products, they need to establish their own quality reputations - English sparkling wine being the perfect example.
The protectionist cachet adds value above and beyond the product; it doesn’t have to be good, just from X.
It therefore puts an artificial floor under the prices that natural market competition would eradicate.
Bonkers. Champagne is a region, famous for its sparkling wine. Hence, by calling any sparkling wine champagne its competitors are trading off its name. Would you support the deregulation of, say, Scotch Whisky, so anyone can call their whisky, Scotch?
I’m not in the least bit bothered.
Many geographical terms are simply used as shorthand.
The Indians do quite a few “Scotch” whiskeys. A Scotsman might describe the taste as absolute pishwater.
I was once offered – and drank – White Horse 'Scotch' Whisky in Mount Abu.
22 years later, I still haven't recovered.
Do they still make that? I haven't seen it for years.
(The real one, not the rip-off.)
It was the Indian version. I hope for everyone's sakes it is no longer in production!
I also think GI's have negative effects especially as the products go mass market. So non-wine buffs can decide that they like a grape variety i.e Chardonnay because they have tasted various clearly labelled wines. They can be in the vintners saying "This one is a Chablis, do not want that variety, but this Australian Chardonnay is the real thing." Obviously Champagne has the world wide name recognition.
You learn something every day. That people actively want to be sold misleadingly-labelled food and wine is something I never expected to find!
I don’t think they’re saying that. When a product has a name that has become generic “Hoover” or “Cheddar” or “Champagne” then provided it’s labelled accurately - “Californian Champagne”, “Irish Cheddar” how is that misleading?
In many countries the market leader becomes the category generic descriptor - so “Huggies Pampers” for example is simpler to say and easier to remember than “Huggies disposable diaper”. In some ways it’s a sign of success.
What surprises me is your happiness at the EU insisting on resolving something that belongs in trade negotiations while refusing to conduct trade negotiations. You have been a consistent critic of their hypocrisy in this.
Champagne has NOT become generic. Sorry that is wrong.
If someone says, "would you like some champagne? it is reasonable and normal to expect what they are serving to be, erm, champagne. Otherwise they would say, would you like some prosecco or English sparkling (the latter often being better than many champagnes anyway)."
Do you offer your dinner guests champagne when it is not?
I don’t, but the number of “Champagne Receptions” I’ve been to that featured sparkling wine.....
Well I am glad you don't.
(And yes, I take that point – and it's mostly bloody awful!!)
I also think GI's have negative effects especially as the products go mass market. So non-wine buffs can decide that they like a grape variety i.e Chardonnay because they have tasted various clearly labelled wines. They can be in the vintners saying "This one is a Chablis, do not want that variety, but this Australian Chardonnay is the real thing." Obviously Champagne has the world wide name recognition.
Good point. I love Shiraz wine (which has nothing to do with Shiraz in Iran/Persia) but I've never bought a French Shiraz
Europe’s quest for supremacy in the gastronomic Great Game hinges on intellectual property rights. Each time the EU signs a trade deal, it pushes to lock its partners into its ecosystem of geographical indications, or GIs, which protect food names traditionally tied to a certain region, such as Bordeaux wines and Parma ham.
Europe’s quest for supremacy in the gastronomic Great Game hinges on intellectual property rights. Each time the EU signs a trade deal, it pushes to lock its partners into its ecosystem of geographical indications, or GIs, which protect food names traditionally tied to a certain region, such as Bordeaux wines and Parma ham.
Europe’s quest for supremacy in the gastronomic Great Game hinges on intellectual property rights. Each time the EU signs a trade deal, it pushes to lock its partners into its ecosystem of geographical indications, or GIs, which protect food names traditionally tied to a certain region, such as Bordeaux wines and Parma ham.
For many champagne is simply a sparkling wine. If the Californians make a good sparkling wine and want to market it as Californian Champagne why shouldn't they?.
Err, because (a) it isn't champagne, and (b) the only possible reason for wanting to use the name is to sell off the back of the reputation of the real thing.
I'm frankly gobsmacked that anyone disagrees with this. I can only assume it's an attitude of 'this is an EU thing so it must be bad by definition'.
For me, nothing to do with the EU but I am not a fan of additional IP rights. We had that absurd case recently where the NT was trying to force a manufacturer of outdoor clothes wear because they claimed the name of a hill. We had the ridiculous case involving the supermarket Iceland.
Inventions should be protected and encouraged. Geography, not so much.
So you'd be cool with a wine from Algeria being sold as Gevrey-Chambertin (as used to happen in the bad old days)? Or apple juice mixed with industrial alcohol being sold as Scotch Whisky?
If the former brought the price of my favourite Gevs down, absolutely
More seriously, the second isn’t an IP issue, it’s a safety issue, surely?
On the Gorgonzola note - it simply is what a lot of people say when they mean gooey Italian blue cheese
Sorry but this is bonkers on stilts. Protecting the rights of origin is just good sense, both for producer and consumer.
So which American rights of origin do we currently protect?
You can't say something is a Californian Chardonnay if it's actually a Bulgarian Reisling.
For many champagne is simply a sparkling wine. If the Californians make a good sparkling wine and want to market it as Californian Champagne why shouldn't they?.
Err, because (a) it isn't champagne, and (b) the only possible reason for wanting to use the name is to sell off the back of the reputation of the real thing.
I'm frankly gobsmacked that anyone disagrees with this. I can only assume it's an attitude of 'this is an EU thing so it must be bad by definition'.
For me, nothing to do with the EU but I am not a fan of additional IP rights. We had that absurd case recently where the NT was trying to force a manufacturer of outdoor clothes wear because they claimed the name of a hill. We had the ridiculous case involving the supermarket Iceland.
Inventions should be protected and encouraged. Geography, not so much.
So you'd be cool with a wine from Algeria being sold as Gevrey-Chambertin (as used to happen in the bad old days)? Or apple juice mixed with industrial alcohol being sold as Scotch Whisky?
If the former brought the price of my favourite Gevs down, absolutely
More seriously, the second isn’t an IP issue, it’s a safety issue, surely?
On the Gorgonzola note - it simply is what a lot of people say when they mean gooey Italian blue cheese
Sorry but this is bonkers on stilts. Protecting the rights of origin is just good sense, both for producer and consumer.
So which American rights of origin do we currently protect?
You can't say something is a Californian Chardonnay if it's actually a Bulgarian Reisling.
No, because its not Californian. But you can have a Californian Reisling or a Bulgarian Chardonnay. One is the location, the other is the type.
For many champagne is simply a sparkling wine. If the Californians make a good sparkling wine and want to market it as Californian Champagne why shouldn't they?.
Err, because (a) it isn't champagne, and (b) the only possible reason for wanting to use the name is to sell off the back of the reputation of the real thing.
I'm frankly gobsmacked that anyone disagrees with this. I can only assume it's an attitude of 'this is an EU thing so it must be bad by definition'.
For me, nothing to do with the EU but I am not a fan of additional IP rights. We had that absurd case recently where the NT was trying to force a manufacturer of outdoor clothes wear because they claimed the name of a hill. We had the ridiculous case involving the supermarket Iceland.
Inventions should be protected and encouraged. Geography, not so much.
So you'd be cool with a wine from Algeria being sold as Gevrey-Chambertin (as used to happen in the bad old days)? Or apple juice mixed with industrial alcohol being sold as Scotch Whisky?
If the former brought the price of my favourite Gevs down, absolutely
More seriously, the second isn’t an IP issue, it’s a safety issue, surely?
On the Gorgonzola note - it simply is what a lot of people say when they mean gooey Italian blue cheese
Sorry but this is bonkers on stilts. Protecting the rights of origin is just good sense, both for producer and consumer.
So which American rights of origin do we currently protect?
You can't say something is a Californian Chardonnay if it's actually a Bulgarian Reisling.
No, because its not Californian. But you can have a Californian Reisling or a Bulgarian Chardonnay. One is the location, the other is the type.
Well yes, and the EU argues that Champagne is the region (hence you can also get Champagne brandy) not the type of wine.
In regards to earlier post I'm too lazy to find again....
I assumed (maybe incorrectly) that the evangelical vote was solidly Republican, who Trump represents, because of Supreme Court nominations and specifically Roe vs Wade.
For many champagne is simply a sparkling wine. If the Californians make a good sparkling wine and want to market it as Californian Champagne why shouldn't they?.
Err, because (a) it isn't champagne, and (b) the only possible reason for wanting to use the name is to sell off the back of the reputation of the real thing.
I'm frankly gobsmacked that anyone disagrees with this. I can only assume it's an attitude of 'this is an EU thing so it must be bad by definition'.
For me, nothing to do with the EU but I am not a fan of additional IP rights. We had that absurd case recently where the NT was trying to force a manufacturer of outdoor clothes wear because they claimed the name of a hill. We had the ridiculous case involving the supermarket Iceland.
Inventions should be protected and encouraged. Geography, not so much.
So you'd be cool with a wine from Algeria being sold as Gevrey-Chambertin (as used to happen in the bad old days)? Or apple juice mixed with industrial alcohol being sold as Scotch Whisky?
If the former brought the price of my favourite Gevs down, absolutely
More seriously, the second isn’t an IP issue, it’s a safety issue, surely?
On the Gorgonzola note - it simply is what a lot of people say when they mean gooey Italian blue cheese
Sorry but this is bonkers on stilts. Protecting the rights of origin is just good sense, both for producer and consumer.
So which American rights of origin do we currently protect?
You can't say something is a Californian Chardonnay if it's actually a Bulgarian Reisling.
No, because its not Californian. But you can have a Californian Reisling or a Bulgarian Chardonnay. One is the location, the other is the type.
Well yes, and the EU argues that Champagne is the region (hence you can also get Champagne brandy) not the type of wine.
It's a difficult balance to get right.
And indeed still champagne.
My recollection from my drinking days is that really bad, but genuine, cheap champagne is at least as gut-gripingly horrible as any of its inauthentic contenders.
For many champagne is simply a sparkling wine. If the Californians make a good sparkling wine and want to market it as Californian Champagne why shouldn't they?.
Err, because (a) it isn't champagne, and (b) the only possible reason for wanting to use the name is to sell off the back of the reputation of the real thing.
I'm frankly gobsmacked that anyone disagrees with this. I can only assume it's an attitude of 'this is an EU thing so it must be bad by definition'.
For me, nothing to do with the EU but I am not a fan of additional IP rights. We had that absurd case recently where the NT was trying to force a manufacturer of outdoor clothes wear because they claimed the name of a hill. We had the ridiculous case involving the supermarket Iceland.
Inventions should be protected and encouraged. Geography, not so much.
So you'd be cool with a wine from Algeria being sold as Gevrey-Chambertin (as used to happen in the bad old days)? Or apple juice mixed with industrial alcohol being sold as Scotch Whisky?
If the former brought the price of my favourite Gevs down, absolutely
More seriously, the second isn’t an IP issue, it’s a safety issue, surely?
On the Gorgonzola note - it simply is what a lot of people say when they mean gooey Italian blue cheese
Sorry but this is bonkers on stilts. Protecting the rights of origin is just good sense, both for producer and consumer.
So which American rights of origin do we currently protect?
You can't say something is a Californian Chardonnay if it's actually a Bulgarian Reisling.
I for one look forward to the return of British sherry. Drains have never been cleaner...
There is indeed sod all happening, but we have to argue about something. Hence why some PBers are argueing that I can carbonate some Aussie plonk and call it champagne - full marks for trying.
"Hoover: owned by Hoover. Should be called: vacuum cleaner."
It's debatable. A number of sites including the BBC list hoover as a generic term.
A number are clearly-cut legally generic now, like aspirin in America or sellotape here. That article you linked lists a number of others such as yo-yo, thermos or escalator.
The generic term for sellotape in Australia is Durex. I thought you would like to know.
For many champagne is simply a sparkling wine. If the Californians make a good sparkling wine and want to market it as Californian Champagne why shouldn't they?.
Err, because (a) it isn't champagne, and (b) the only possible reason for wanting to use the name is to sell off the back of the reputation of the real thing.
I'm frankly gobsmacked that anyone disagrees with this. I can only assume it's an attitude of 'this is an EU thing so it must be bad by definition'.
For me, nothing to do with the EU but I am not a fan of additional IP rights. We had that absurd case recently where the NT was trying to force a manufacturer of outdoor clothes wear because they claimed the name of a hill. We had the ridiculous case involving the supermarket Iceland.
Inventions should be protected and encouraged. Geography, not so much.
So you'd be cool with a wine from Algeria being sold as Gevrey-Chambertin (as used to happen in the bad old days)? Or apple juice mixed with industrial alcohol being sold as Scotch Whisky?
If the former brought the price of my favourite Gevs down, absolutely
More seriously, the second isn’t an IP issue, it’s a safety issue, surely?
On the Gorgonzola note - it simply is what a lot of people say when they mean gooey Italian blue cheese
Sorry but this is bonkers on stilts. Protecting the rights of origin is just good sense, both for producer and consumer.
So which American rights of origin do we currently protect?
You can't say something is a Californian Chardonnay if it's actually a Bulgarian Reisling.
No, because its not Californian. But you can have a Californian Reisling or a Bulgarian Chardonnay. One is the location, the other is the type.
Well yes, and the EU argues that Champagne is the region (hence you can also get Champagne brandy) not the type of wine.
It's a difficult balance to get right.
If something is a 'Californian Champagne' with "country of origin USA" on it then how is the consumer confused about the region?
For many champagne is simply a sparkling wine. If the Californians make a good sparkling wine and want to market it as Californian Champagne why shouldn't they?.
Err, because (a) it isn't champagne, and (b) the only possible reason for wanting to use the name is to sell off the back of the reputation of the real thing.
I'm frankly gobsmacked that anyone disagrees with this. I can only assume it's an attitude of 'this is an EU thing so it must be bad by definition'.
For me, nothing to do with the EU but I am not a fan of additional IP rights. We had that absurd case recently where the NT was trying to force a manufacturer of outdoor clothes wear because they claimed the name of a hill. We had the ridiculous case involving the supermarket Iceland.
Inventions should be protected and encouraged. Geography, not so much.
So you'd be cool with a wine from Algeria being sold as Gevrey-Chambertin (as used to happen in the bad old days)? Or apple juice mixed with industrial alcohol being sold as Scotch Whisky?
If the former brought the price of my favourite Gevs down, absolutely
More seriously, the second isn’t an IP issue, it’s a safety issue, surely?
On the Gorgonzola note - it simply is what a lot of people say when they mean gooey Italian blue cheese
Sorry but this is bonkers on stilts. Protecting the rights of origin is just good sense, both for producer and consumer.
So which American rights of origin do we currently protect?
You can't say something is a Californian Chardonnay if it's actually a Bulgarian Reisling.
No, because its not Californian. But you can have a Californian Reisling or a Bulgarian Chardonnay. One is the location, the other is the type.
Well yes, and the EU argues that Champagne is the region (hence you can also get Champagne brandy) not the type of wine.
It's a difficult balance to get right.
If something is a 'Californian Champagne' with "country of origin USA" on it then how is the consumer confused about the region?
I don't know if there is a good post to reply to specifically on this but it is more of a general point.
The problem with pointing at Corbyn's rebellions is in the eyes of a majority of Labour members he was often right. To give an obvious example Corbyn's rebellion over the Iraq war is always considered a huge strength among the membership. Lesser ones such as his civil liberty stance over excessive anti terror legislation are also popular within the membership. I haven't looked through his entire rebellious record but I'm sure I remember Stepthen Bush talking about Iraq involving several votes (on which I assume he rebelled on each one) it quickly adds up and I suspect there is a reason his opponents in Labour just talk about the number of rebellions rather than the actual things he rebelled on.
I think I also remember Stephen Bush talking about him only voting against Labour 2/10 times during his most rebellious period, I imagine this would range from things that Labour members would approve of to things they don't care about.
The problem for Frank Field and the others that moves were made to deselect is not so much that they voted 'for Brexit' there are many more than the 4 who have voted for Brexit and will vote for Brexit. To give a somewhat popular on here (by the standards of Labour MPs who were for remain) example Caroline Flint, yet she managed not to vote against Labour on this issue.
What they did, as Danny pointed out a few times, was unite Corbyn supporters and strong remainer types (some centrist types) against them, it left them without any real faction in their CLPs to back them. I think the vote against Kate Hoey in her CLP passed without a vote in her favour, Frank got a few in his favour but it was still a pretty overwhelming result against him.
The idea from Labour opponents that Frank Field could stand and win against Labour in his seat is very optimistic I feel, he's in pretty solid Corbyn supporting territory, popularity among the residents of PB and the unpopularity of Corbyn and an MP who presumably is at least a bit more like him is generally not a good guide to what will happen electorally in Liverpool and places like it politically.
I don't know if there is a good post to reply to specifically on this but it is more of a general point.
The problem with pointing at Corbyn's rebellions is in the eyes of a majority of Labour members he was often right. To give an obvious example Corbyn's rebellion over the Iraq war is always considered a huge strength among the membership. Lesser ones such as his civil liberty stance over excessive anti terror legislation are also popular within the membership. I haven't looked through his entire rebellious record but I'm sure I remember Stepthen Bush talking about Iraq involving several votes (on which I assume he rebelled on each one) it quickly adds up and I suspect there is a reason his opponents in Labour just talk about the number of rebellions rather than the actual things he rebelled on.
I think I also remember Stephen Bush talking about him only voting against Labour 2/10 times during his most rebellious period, I imagine this would range from things that Labour members would approve of to things they don't care about.
The problem for Frank Field and the others that moves were made to deselect is not so much that they voted 'for Brexit' there are many more than the 4 who have voted for Brexit and will vote for Brexit. To give a somewhat popular on here (by the standards of Labour MPs who were for remain) example Caroline Flint, yet she managed not to vote against Labour on this issue.
What they did, as Danny pointed out a few times, was unite Corbyn supporters and strong remainer types (some centrist types) against them, it left them without any real faction in their CLPs to back them. I think the vote against Kate Hoey in her CLP passed without a vote in her favour, Frank got a few in his favour but it was still a pretty overwhelming result against him.
The idea from Labour opponents that Frank Field could stand and win against Labour in his seat is very optimistic I feel, he's in pretty solid Corbyn supporting territory, popularity among the residents of PB and the unpopularity of Corbyn and an MP who presumably is at least a bit more like him is generally not a good guide to what will happen electorally in Liverpool and places like it politically.
Good post. I would also welcome if Hoey, Mann and Stringer also left the party whip.
It is indeed interesting. One wonders what level of degenerate, adulterous, boastful lying is intolerable to US Evangelicals.
The change in the polling of amongst Evangelicals think is and isn't morally acceptable since Trump clinched the nomination is truly astounding.
A cynical person might say there is something vaguely connected with racism and anti-abortion above all else amongst evangelicals and everything else they propose to profess is a load of shit.
The Evangelicals who lost their money in Trump's casinos voted for the twice-divorced, serial adulterer who in the past was pro-abortion? There is a serious point which is that if Evangelicals did vote for Trump then it was not on religious grounds, since Trump offends everything Evangelicals would claim to stand for, so the label is misleading in this context. If Evangelicals voted for Trump it was for some other shared characteristic -- their states had lost jobs, or were riddled with prescribed opiates, or something else, but not their religion.
It was the same when they broke for Reagan over Carter: the agnostic divorcé over the guy who taught Sunday School even while President. Religion might provide a convenient label but it is not the important driver of votes.
It's almost like they prioritise anti-abortion and racism over everything else.
Comments
More seriously, the second isn’t an IP issue, it’s a safety issue, surely?
On the Gorgonzola note - it simply is what a lot of people say when they mean gooey Italian blue cheese
In 1944 they refused to advance against the Germans in Boudreaux for fear of damaging the vineyards.
Then a young lieutenant realised the Germans must have been equally nervous about damaging the grape harvest - all their defences were in the vineyards of inferior vines!
More here:
https://www.thedrinksbusiness.com/2014/01/wine-and-warfare-part-12-vineyards-under-attack/
This is a class Test match in a great series.
Am I defrauded when I buy a Dyson hoover?
How am I defrauded if I voluntarily and knowingly buy a Californian Champagne?
I would be equally happy to have a whisky (even without the "e") sold as such provided it was clearly labelled that it was made in Holland. Obviously apple juice with industrial alcohol could not be sold as whisky because it isn't, Scotch or otherwise. Again, I get to make an informed choice.
These geographical restrictions are there to inhibit competition not increase it. They also hide a multitude of sins. Even I know that not every Chablis is particularly good and yet I am invited to pay a premium for it because it has the cachet of the name.
Jennings has made it to stumps.
Many geographical terms are simply used as shorthand.
I don't think he would have done that for wine from Devon...
However, she can stand for Westminster. She'll probably win a seat, and there's half a chance that she'll get some sort of a government role - that'll be at best something middle-ranking though. She then has to do well at that (politically well). She has to convince others.
She could be the next Tory leader therefore, but that rather depends on May sticking around for some years.
Next Tory leader but one, I'd have her slightly shorter. Long odds still though.
The Labour equivalent is David Millband - it's almost unimaginable that he can find a way back to be the next Labour leader, unless Corbyn is around for a long time. Next-leader-but-one, slightly better chance.
It is trademark owned by The Hoover Company and it is not "available to buy" in the UK. That is utter rubbish.
You cannot sell a Hoover unless it is produced by the Hoover Company.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27026704
"Hoover: owned by Hoover. Should be called: vacuum cleaner."
(Also, for the wine drinkers, there is an exceptional Gavi for £8.50 from the Co-op of all places - the tip-off from the Co-op's wine buyer himself.)
In many countries the market leader becomes the category generic descriptor - so “Huggies Pampers” for example is simpler to say and easier to remember than “Huggies disposable diaper”. In some ways it’s a sign of success.
What surprises me is your happiness at the EU insisting on resolving something that belongs in trade negotiations while refusing to conduct trade negotiations. You have been a consistent critic of their hypocrisy in this.
A number are clearly-cut legally generic now, like aspirin in America or sellotape here. That article you linked lists a number of others such as yo-yo, thermos or escalator.
Agreed. Enthralling day ahead tomorrow!
If someone says, "would you like some champagne? it is reasonable and normal to expect what they are serving to be, erm, champagne. Otherwise they would say, would you like some prosecco or English sparkling (the latter often being better than many champagnes anyway)."
Do you offer your dinner guests champagne when it is not?
https://www.thespiritsbusiness.com/2016/02/swa-wins-legal-battles-for-scotch-in-india/
I cannot say I was impressed.
22 years later, I still haven't recovered.
Among locals who know about these things there is a suggestion that St Anne's vineyard in Oxenhall near Kempley is actually the best, rather than the Three Choirs at Newent. However, it's difficult enough to get the latter never mind the former.
You were wrong. You cannot sell a Hoover unless it is produced by the Hoover Company.
It really is as simple as that.
(The real one, not the rip-off.)
So non-wine buffs can decide that they like a grape variety i.e Chardonnay because they have tasted various clearly labelled wines.
They can be in the vintners saying "This one is a Chablis, do not want that variety, but this Australian Chardonnay is the real thing."
Obviously Champagne has the world wide name recognition.
(And yes, I take that point – and it's mostly bloody awful!!)
Europe’s quest for supremacy in the gastronomic Great Game hinges on intellectual property rights. Each time the EU signs a trade deal, it pushes to lock its partners into its ecosystem of geographical indications, or GIs, which protect food names traditionally tied to a certain region, such as Bordeaux wines and Parma ham.
https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-eats-trumps-lunch/
Everyone else signs up to EU GIs as part of a trade deal - why should the U.K. be different?
Twitter thinks i might be interested in people like the Israel PM
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1035590909495312384?s=19
'They hate them and break them at every chance they get.'
It's a difficult balance to get right.
"An American viticultural area is a defined grape-growing region in the US..."
https://www.ttb.gov/pdf/brochures/p51901.pdf
Same for Australia , NZ and South Africa. You can't sell a wine as a Clare Valley Riesling if it isn't.
I assumed (maybe incorrectly) that the evangelical vote was solidly Republican, who Trump represents, because of Supreme Court nominations and specifically Roe vs Wade.
My recollection from my drinking days is that really bad, but genuine, cheap champagne is at least as gut-gripingly horrible as any of its inauthentic contenders.
And, a spending a few days by the sea in Bexhill.
There is indeed sod all happening, but we have to argue about something. Hence why some PBers are argueing that I can carbonate some Aussie plonk and call it champagne - full marks for trying.
NEW THREAD
https://youtu.be/nknYtlOvaQ0
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/26/michel-barnier-tears-up-theresa-mays-brexit-customs-proposals
The problem with pointing at Corbyn's rebellions is in the eyes of a majority of Labour members he was often right. To give an obvious example Corbyn's rebellion over the Iraq war is always considered a huge strength among the membership. Lesser ones such as his civil liberty stance over excessive anti terror legislation are also popular within the membership. I haven't looked through his entire rebellious record but I'm sure I remember Stepthen Bush talking about Iraq involving several votes (on which I assume he rebelled on each one) it quickly adds up and I suspect there is a reason his opponents in Labour just talk about the number of rebellions rather than the actual things he rebelled on.
I think I also remember Stephen Bush talking about him only voting against Labour 2/10 times during his most rebellious period, I imagine this would range from things that Labour members would approve of to things they don't care about.
The problem for Frank Field and the others that moves were made to deselect is not so much that they voted 'for Brexit' there are many more than the 4 who have voted for Brexit and will vote for Brexit. To give a somewhat popular on here (by the standards of Labour MPs who were for remain) example Caroline Flint, yet she managed not to vote against Labour on this issue.
What they did, as Danny pointed out a few times, was unite Corbyn supporters and strong remainer types (some centrist types) against them, it left them without any real faction in their CLPs to back them. I think the vote against Kate Hoey in her CLP passed without a vote in her favour, Frank got a few in his favour but it was still a pretty overwhelming result against him.
The idea from Labour opponents that Frank Field could stand and win against Labour in his seat is very optimistic I feel, he's in pretty solid Corbyn supporting territory, popularity among the residents of PB and the unpopularity of Corbyn and an MP who presumably is at least a bit more like him is generally not a good guide to what will happen electorally in Liverpool and places like it politically.
A cynical person might say there is something vaguely connected with racism and anti-abortion above all else amongst evangelicals and everything else they propose to profess is a load of shit.