Entirely unnecessary Champagne Jayne case settled

Christmas toast: Nyetimber Classic Cuvée

#tastesbetterthanmanychampagnes

Unless the CIVC appeal, their court case against Jayne Powell (aka Champagne Jayne) is finished – 'settled by consent'. In an order from the Federal Court in Melbourne dated 23rd December 2015 Powell has agreed not to call herself a Champagne Ambassador and to make it clear that when she mentions other sparkling wines on social media.

Jayne is not allowed to speak to the media before the end of February 2016 when the appeal period finishes. The possibility of an appeal is presumably theoretical as the case has been settled by consent. Full details of the order below. 

No details of costs known at present. Also the CIVC's objection to the Champagne Jayne trademark is a separate issue and as far as I know has yet to be resolved.

This is surely a very small sop for the CIVC in what ought to be a hugely embarrassing defeat for the CIVC and the Champagne producers. Surely all this could have been agreed without the need to go to court.  

Huge credit to Jayne Powell for standing up to the CIVC bully boys at huge emotional and financial cost to herself. It shows that you don't have to cave into corporate bullies. Furthermore I hope it will make other concerns think before engaging in bullying small businesses.    

I note that the order makes no mention of how Jayne is to make it clear that a sparkling wine is not Champagne, so here are some hashtags which should make the distinction evident.  

#bettervaluethanchampagne
#tastesbetterthanchampagne
#loweryieldsthanchampagne
#lessaddedsugarthanchampagne 
#notthechampagnebullies
#idontdrinkchampagne
#champagnewineofbulliesnotcelebration

••

Details of the order: 

UPON THE RESPONDENT undertaking to the Court that she will not in future use the word “ambassador” to describe herself or her services (or cause herself to be so described) in conjunction with the words “champagne” or “champagne jayne” unless excused by the Court, 

THE COURT ORDERS BY CONSENT THAT:

In these orders:
Champagne Wines means wines produced in the Champagne region of France, made in accordance with French laws and entitled under those laws to bear the name CHAMPAGNE.

Confidential Annexures means:

(a)     Annexure RJP-4 to the affidavit of Rachel Jayne Powell affirmed 18 November 2015; and
(b)    CONFIDENTIAL Annexures SMS-5 to SMS-8 inclusive to the affidavit of Stephen Marcus Stern sworn 26 November 2015.
Social Media means a space constrained online social networking site, and for the avoidance of doubt excludes blogs or websites such as the Champagne Jayne website.

1.     The Respondent be permanently restrained from posting items on:
(a)     her @champagnejayne Twitter account;
(b)    her Instagram account known as “champagnejayne”;
(c)     her Vine account known as “Champagne Jayne”;
(d)    her Facebook account known as “Champagne Jayne”; and
(e)     any other Social Media account known as “Champagne Jayne” of which the Respondent is account holder now or in the future,
referring to wines which are not Champagne Wines without clearly stating that they are not Champagne Wines.
2.       Pursuant to Part VAA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and by reason of the need to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice, the Confidential Annexures be prohibited from publication except to the parties and their legal representatives until further Court order.
3.       The Confidential Annexures be placed in a sealed envelope with the annotation “not to be disclosed without the order of a Judge”.
4.       The proceeding otherwise be dismissed.

Date that entry is stamped: 23 December 2015   

Champagne Jayne: the last day of battle – Monday 13th April 2015

Pierre Taittinger and Jayne Powell  

Jayne Powell (Champagne Jayne) v CIVC  

On Monday 13th April the respective legal teams set out their concluding arguments. As before I am indebted to Graeme Lofts for his report on the proceedings. On this final day Jayne was represented by a new legal team: Natalie Hickey and Evelyn Tadros, who Graeme and his wife, Dianne, felt were very effective. 

The case has now been adjourned while the Judge – Justice Jonathon Beach – makes his decision. I understand that this could take anything from six weeks to a year. 

Of course everything hinges on Justice Beach's decision but there seems to be grounds for cautious optimism that Champagne's pursuit of Jayne Powell might just be a case too far for the CIVC. 

••   

Graeme Lofts' report:

Federal Court of Australia, Melbourne, Monday April 13, 2015

'The battle between the Comité Interprofessionnel du vin de Champagne (the CIVC) and Australian wine educator and media personality  Rachel Jayne Powell, better known as Champagne Jayne resumed in the Federal Court of Australia, Melbourne on Monday April 13 with the presentation of closing submissions by lawyers for both sides. Ms Powell’s new team of barristers, Natalie Hickey and Evelyn Tadros, argued that the CIVC had failed to provide sufficient evidence that Champagne Jayne had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct by mentioning sparkling wines other than Champagne in her presentations. No new evidence was admitted and much of the day’s proceedings consisted of references to previous cases and legalese. 

On several occasions the judge, Justice Jonathon Beach, admitted that he could see nothing wrong with the use of the name Champagne Jayne. He believed that the question to be answered was whether or not Ms Powell  had mislead, deceived or confused her audiences – whether at functions or on television, her website or on social media such as Twitter. A lot of the argument from both sides centred on who the audience was and what proportion already understood that sparkling wine could only be called Champagne if it comes from the Champagne appellation of France.

The CICV’s search for incriminating tweets amongst thousands of tweets on Jayne’s Twitter account was questioned by her barrister Natalie Hickey and she explained how Twitter worked and argued that it was a conversational medium in which comments were made in an instant and any individual tweet was almost always fleeting. She explained that it was impossible to gauge the wine knowledge of Jayne’s Twitter followers and the use of a few isolated tweets out of thousands was not evidence of misleading conduct.

Ms Hickey also argued that the segments of videotapes of Jayne’s presentations by the CIVC’s legal team to demonstrate misleading conduct were carefully selected and only partially represented the presentations and a videotape of a whole presentation would show that Champagne Jayne had clearly distinguished between Champagne and other sparkling wines.

The judge has adjourned the case and in due course will advise both parties of his decision. It is understood that his decision may not be reached for several months.'

Champagne Jayne (aka Jayne Powell) back in court Monday 13th April

Kind of amusing to see Champenoise honouring Jayne, 

who they later alleged 'tarnished' Champagne's image  

Jayne Powell (Champagne Jayne) and the CIVC will be back in the Australian Federal Court in Melbourne on Monday 13th April 2015 at 10.15. Both sides will submit their closing submissions after which the Judge will then make his conclusion, and in due course will advise both parties of his decision.

Jayne Powell will have her new legal team with her in court.

It is still possible to contribute to Jayne's legal expenses at Go Fund Me. The total now stands at $1850. 

I await the court's verdict with great interest. Both side in this for high stakes – neither can afford to lose!

•• 

I am still enjoying a Champagne-free 2015. No great hardship when there are both quality English sparkling wines about as well as those from the Loire. Have recently enjoyed Philippe Foreau's 2007 Vouvray Reserve and his 2010 as well as our long standing close relationship with Triple Zéro from Jacky Blot. 

Considering submitting 'Champagne – no thanks!' as a trademark.   

‘Champagne Jayne v CIVC: the Fizzical Battle Resumes’

An uneven battle ....

Graeme Lofts reports:

'The battle between Champagne Jayne and the CIVC (Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne) resumed in Melbourne’s Federal Court yesterday (4.3.2015) with a long day of mediation. Jayne was unable to comment on the outcome so it seems that the media gag is still in place and that the matter is still before the court.'

However, it would appear that this second attempt at mediation has been unsuccessful and that at a date, as yet unknown, the case will return to the Melbourne Federal Court. Mediation was also tried around this time last year and again on that occasion it proved to be unsuccessful.   

'Jayne Powell, aka Champagne Jayne has spent many years of her life promoting and supporting the Champagne industry by educating and entertaining people from all parts of the world about Champagne. Despite her passionate efforts and support of the Champagne industry she is being sued by the Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne (the CIVC) for deceiving and misleading conduct.

As a result of this action by the CIVC, Jayne is being driven out of business and is being forced into bankruptcy. For well over a year Champagne Jayne has been desperately fighting a battle against this powerful, global organisation with an abundance of funding and an expensive team of lawyers.

Champagne Jayne’s supporters have now rallied together to create a fundraising campaign that will help pay the legal costs so that she can continue to defend herself against this outrageous behaviour of the CIVC. To read more about Champagne Jayne’s battle and support our fundraising campaign please go to http://www.gofundme.com/jaynevgoliath.' 

The fund currently stands at a rather disappointing $AU1,160. It would be good to see more donations from people who have criticised the CIVC’s heavy-handed action in pushing ahead with this court case.  

Jim's Loire is again indebted to Graeme Lofts for his report. 

It is highly regrettable that mediation has once again failed. Jim's Loire is in no way privy to the reasons for this failure or to any details of the mediation, with the parties are covered by strict rules of confidentiality. However, as it was the CIVC who embarked on this quite unnecessary case, I hope that they made a genuine effort to settle and did not continue their previous hard-ball tactics. 

I can understand their legal objection to Jayne Powell trademarking Champagne Jayne, although why Champagne Escorts in Milton Keynes is left untouched, while Jayne Powell is pursued for 'tarnishing the image of Champagne' is entirely beyond my limited comprehension. 

      Champagnes Escort Agency – apparently acceptable to the CIVC

Graeme Lofts to cover trial of 'Champagne Jayne'

Graeme Lofts

I am delighted that Australian author Graeme Lofts will be covering the forthcoming case the CIVC v Jayne Powell (aka Champagne Jayne) for Jim's Loire. The case is due to start on Monday 15th December in the Federal Court in Melbourne and is estimated to last four days. Graeme will be sending in daily reports. 

Graeme writes books on science as well as wine. In 2012 his Heart & Soul: Australia’s First Families of Wine was shortlisted and ranked second in the New World Wines category of the 2011 Gourmand World Cookbook Awards.

Article on decanter.com (October 2013) on Champagne (CIVC) enforcers with some 1000 cases a year following up alleged trademark infringements.