Saturday, 4 January 2014
Duckhorn – a complete nonsense to sue over 'duck'
Duckhorn Napa Valley Merlot
Duck Commander Triple Threat Red Blend
Looks like the silly season, normally confined to August, has started eight months early with the news that Duckhorn is suing Sutter Home Winery and Wal-Mart claiming that the recently launched Duck Commander range are too close to their own name and labels.
I can't see that Duckhorn's claim has any merit. How can you claim a right over the name 'Duck'? The two labels above have little in common, so it is difficult how consumers could be confused. Perhaps Duckhorn took the 'Triple Threat' name too seriously?
If Duckhorn are looking to sue duck look-a-likes then the great Luis Pato ought to be a target as the ducks featured on the respective labels have some resemblances.
Luis Pato's Vinha Formal – Pato is Portuguese for
duck hence the duck on the label
Hopefully the relevant judge will throw out the Duckhorn case as having absolutely no merit. If it does have any merit then will we, for instance, see Latour suing La Tour de By and many other La Tours, Lafite suing Laffitte-Teston etc. In the Loire this would be a gift to ther legal profession with Mabileau suing Mabileau, Crochet suing lots of other Crochets, Riffault doing the same etc with their namesakes and many other examples.
No this Duckhorn case joins the list of infamously no merit wine related legal cases, which include:
* Gallo's suit against Chianti Classico's Gallo Nero
* Veuve Clicquot's suit against Tasmanian
sparkling wine producer Stefano Lubiano
* Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne (CIVC)'s
suit against the Swiss village of Champagne