Champagne litigation - woefully inconsistent

From recognition to CIVC public enemy!

Non-vintage Champagne is designed to have a consistent flavour. A consistency that is woefully lacking in the Champenois's widely acknowledged thirst for litigation.

Step forward Veuve Clicquot who have trademarked a shade of yellow Pantone 137C to protect their NV cuvée. In 2001 VC famously pursued Stefano Lubiana Winery in Tasmania. More recently they went after the small Italian producer Ciro Picariello over an allegedly similar colour label for their small production of sparkling wine. Photographs with VC and CP suggested that the labels were a different shade. Nevertheless VC entered into 'amicable conversations' with the Italians.

It is, of course, understandable that the Champenois are keen to protect their intellectual property and trademarks but they surely should be consistent.

Profusion of yellow-orange labels on sparkling wines but 

apparently no complaints so no confusion... 

Step into a Sainsbury's supermarket and head to the sparkling wine shelves here there are a host of brands - mainly Proseccos with yellow orange labels, which could be confused with Champagne. Yet there are no reports that VC has warned or started proceedings against brands of Prosecco whose labels could be confused with those of Veuve Clicquot. Is the apparently different treatment down to the Prosecco producers having deeper pockets than either Stefano Lubiana or Ciro Picariello?

Veuve Clicquot flavoured champagne loo roll?!

'As part of the essential Waitrose range, this toilet tissue offers all the quality you’d expect at a price you wouldn’t. The pack contains 9 rolls of 2 ply tissue, each of which is made up of around 240 sheets. Though this pack is champagne coloured, other shades are available to complement your bathroom.'

Champagne Jayne might fairly be accused of tarnishing Champagne´s image if she had said that 'Champagne's yields are eye-wateringly high, it is made with barely ripe grapes and that Champagne provides significant support for Northern France's sugar beet industry, which supplies the necessary added sunshine.' Jayne has not done this.

Instead Jayne has been a champion of Champagne, so it is all the more curious that the CIVC appears to have gone after her with striking ferocity. They seem to be all too prepared to grind a sole trader into the ground. Someone, who Pierre Taittinger was prepared to induct her into the Dame Chevalier de L'Ordre des Coteaux de Champagne on 8^th September 2012.

It seems likely that the blue touch paper for this dispute was lit in 2012 by when Jayne successfully trademarked her moniker Champagne Jayne, which she had been using for her business since 2003. Her trademark was approved in July 2012 and the CIVC lodged their opposition to the trademark on 1st November 2012. It is possible that the CIVC were unaware that 'Champagne Jayne' was being trademarked otherwise they presumably would have objected before approval was given.

CIVC's claim was lodged in December 2013. They have extended the claim on several occasions. In March 2014 the judge ordered mediation but that clearly failed. The CIVC subpoenaed Accolade Wines in June 2014 presumably in the hope that this would provide incriminating evidence that could be used against her.

Their case will be heard in the Federal Court in Melbourne starting on Monday 15th December and is estimated to last four days. It is reasonable to assume that it is the Champain lawyers who have asked for four days rather than Champagne Jayne. Quite probably in the hope that she will capitulate rather than face the possibility of losing and the associated ruinous costs as well as providing them with substantial fees for their four days work.

It will be interesting to see how and whether the CIVC can persuade the judge that Jayne has tarnished the brand Champagne. How many tweets - there are 21k - will he have to read to find evidence that she has tarnished Champagne. How many Facebook entries to find any incriminating evidence? From the footage I have seen of her appearances on Australian TV she is always very positive about Champagne.

Equally, while Jayne certainly has a bubbly personality, it would be difficult to mistake her for a bottle of Champagne. 

'Champagnes Escort Agency – adult notice'

'Adult Notice
This site is of an adult nature. Do not enter this site if you are under 18, press the back button on your browser now to leave. By entering this site you are verifying that you are over the age of 18 and know this site is of an adult nature.

Champagnes Escort Agency, a Milton Keynes, Luton, Bedford and London Escort agency, provide an escort outcall service with a variety of sexy, beautiful and friendly ladies ready to discreetly visit you in your home, hotel or a location of your choice.'

While Jayne Powell is alleged to have 'tarnished' the image of Champagne, as far as I know the CIVC have not been in touch with Champagnes Escort Agency. Perhaps the CIVC considers that Champagnes enhances the image of Champagne. I wonder whether the girls are under contract to insist that their clients drink only Champagne and that if the client tries to buy a bottle of Prosecco, Cava or other sparkling wine, the escort makes her excuses and leaves?

The CIVC is demanding that the Champagne Jayne twitter account is closed. Yet a brief search on Twitter shows at least several dozen twitter handles that incorporate the 'Champagne' word.      

If the Champenois treats its friends like this, what does it mete out to its enemies .....? 

Links:
Good piece by Anthony Rose on Veuve Clicquot. 
Article in the Herald Sun. 
Decanter news piece 1.12.14

Veuve Clicquot: Al Capone would have understood an 'amicable conversation'

Al Capone

Yesterday Luciano Pignataro published on his blog an interview with Patricia Picariello, the wife of Ciro. The Picariellos have been subject to a legal dispute (harassment may well be a more accurate description) by Veuve Clicquot, part of the LVMH group over an alleged similarity between their labels.

See here, here and here.

It is strikingly clear from the interview that the Picariellos do not view Veuve Clicquot's approach as an 'amicable conversation'. Very far from the case they have felt threatened, stressed and had the expense of employing a law firm who specialise in trade mark disputes – all because of a highly dubious claim of label similarity.

Patricia explains that the dispute started when their Brut Contadino was mentioned on the blogs of Luciano Pignataro and Andrea Petrini:

“It all began from two articles published on Brut Contardino. One was on this blog (Luciano Pignataro Wineblog) and Andrea Petrini’s wine blog. In the articles, jokingly and not said by me, there were references to our competitors, Veuve Clicquot. But it was clear that it was meant to be taken as irony. Because no one could think that I, with my 3000 bottles of sparkling wine, could really be in competition with Champagne."

"Through my lawyer I had already withdrawn the bottles but I received another letter in December, which was far from amicable, in which Veuve Clicquot reserved the right to establish a sum for damages they had suffered. I have no idea how they might intend to do this.”   

"Veuve Clicquot has registered their particular color and the color of the Ciro Picariello labels is not the same as that trademarked by Cliquot." *

"I asked the bloggers to remove the articles and I withdrew the bottles. What else am I supposed to do?"  

When they received the first complaint the Picariellos asked both Luciano Pignataro and Andrea Petrini to take down the 'offending posts' and they removed their Brut Contadino from sale. 

Unfortunately this wasn't enough for Veuve Clicquot's legal louts, who may well have considered the Picariello's conciliatory approach as a sign of weakness, so they sent a further letter in reserving the right to damages. As the colour of the labels is different and that of the Picariellos is not registered, how damages might be assessed is a complete mystery. We can, however, be assured that it will be done 'amicably'.  

Tweets by Michael Edwards, a leading writer 

and commentator on Champagne 

'This publicity is dreadful for the Widow.'

There is another very interesting assessment of damage to reputation to be calculated by Veuve Clicquot is the self-inflicted harm to their own reputation through this pernicious and unjustified corporate bullying.  

High time for Veuve Clicquot's PR advisers to come up with a damage limitation strategy and this time don't try to con use with claims of 'amicable' conversations or discussions! A fulsome apology to the Picariellos would be a start.      

* Many thanks to Patricia Guy for the translation from Italian.

  

The difference between orange socks and Champagne: assisting Veuve Clicquot's legal team

You couldn't make it up! 

'seeing the world through Clicquot coloured glasses'.  

Explains why Veuve Clicquot's lawyers think 

their label is the same as Ciro Picariello.

Time to get a new prescription!

Veuve Clicquot is urging a small Italian producer in Campania – Ciro Picariello – to 'evolve' (ie change) its orange label colour to avoid confusion with Veuve Clicquot's orange-yellow one. Veuve Clicquot 'continues to sustain an amicable conversation'.

   

The orange label of Ciro Picariello

The yellow orange of Veuve Clicquot

As there is no obvious similarity between either the colour or the design of the two labels it is difficult to see why the Italian producer should 'evolve' its label. As for the 'amicable conversation' it is hardly one held between equals. You have to wonder whether Ciro Picariello are being offered the renowned Sicilian alternative.

From the Drinks' Business report: 'The company added: “Veuve Clicquot conducts an active and extensive worldwide policy to enforce its trademark rights against any kind of infringement and in most cases, the issues raised are amicably settled”.'

Hardly surprising given the corporate muscle of Veuve Clicquot, part of the LVMH group, that when they allege that their trademark rights are being 'infringed' that the 'issues raised are amicably settled'! In a similar case in 2001 the Stefano Lubiana winery in Tasmania agreed to change its labels, although they were clearly a different colour to Veuve Clicquot because they just could not afford the legal costs involved – no legal action and 'issues raised amicably settled'! 

Sometimes people stand up to Veuve Clicquot: Cliquot 'a group of six women’s wear shops in Quebec and eastern Ontario' successfully resisted, with Veuve Clicquot's case being thrown out by the Federal Court of Appeal when VC appealed against an earlier court defeat.   

'The appellant claims that consumers will likely be confused to the point of thinking that the women’s clothing and the champagne originate with the same source, thereby infringing the appellant’s registered trade‑marks contrary to s. 20 of the Trade‑marks Act.'

As Jim's Loire is naturally keen to assist Veuve Clicquot's busy legal team here are some items that they might confuse with their Champagne but I can assure them that they are mistaken: 

Uni-sex, slightly sweaty gym socks

Not Champagne but could perhaps be used as a filter to add flavour  

 Amber light – a Champagne moment when the lights finally change?

Kitchen scissors – time to cut the hyper-active legal team@Veuve Clicquot?

Lewisham Library card – is this London Borough 

trying to add a bit of sparkle?

No waiting but definitely a yellow sign

Sainsbury's carrier bag – the colour might possibly 

confuse Veuve Clicquot's lawyers...

Sparkling shirt but not Champagne!   

But does feature bottles of 'Wrecked – premium lager'

Elizabeth Shaw – Dark Chocolate Orange Flutes –

obvious potential confusion with Champagne glasses 

time for 'amicable discussions to evolve name'? 

'Veuve Clicquot Yellow Label'

'Wolf Blass – Yellow Label'

Now I'm getting confused – is this Australian Veuve Clicquot?

And is that a legal eagle on the label?

Barefoot Shiraz – very similar colour – so clearly sparkling red Veuve Clicquot...

I didn't know Veuve Clicquot made Rioja!

Thank goodness the shelf talker says – 'Yellow label'!

Otherwise it would have thought it was Veuve Clicquot Orange Label...

Veuve Clicquot say this label is yellow – 'Eyes on the Yellow Label prize'

– but is almost orange

Red Champagne from central Italy?

I think I'm getting the hang of this!

Yellow label Rioja 

Potential slight confusion – producer's name starts with a C

and flying kangaroo is yellow with orange stripes 

 At least this is clear – can't be Champagne as 'no added sugar'

Phew finally on firm ground! 

Dyno – UK specialists in clearing blocked drains 

Despite their orange livery Dyno can be pretty confident that even Veuve Clicquot's zealous lawyers won't claim that Dyno, who unblock drains, might be confused with Veuve Clicquot Champagne....     

  

  

Can Veuve Clicquot affect your sight/ judgment?

 The orange label of Ciro Picariello

The yellow orange of Veuve Clicquot

Champagne giant Veuve Clicquot, part of the LVMH group, is reported to be suing Ciro Picariello, a small Italian producer in Campania over the alleged similarity of their labels. See story on Wine Searcher.

Given the striking lack of similarity between the two labels you have to wonder whether a close association with Veuve Clicquot can make you colour blind and affect your judgment? It certainly appears to have that effect on their executives!

As Diana Goodman comments in the Wine Searcher news story: 'Ciro Picariello, a family owned winery in Campania, produces just 3,500 bottles of its fiano-based Brut Contadino each year, and sports a distinctive orange label.'  

So not only is there no similarity between the two labels, Ciro Picariello poses no commercial threat to Veuve Clicquot. This is just another highly unpleasant example of pernicious corporate bullying. Unfortunately Veuve Clicquot has past form here – in early 2001 they successfully intimidated the Stefano Lubiana Winery in Tasmania using legal threats claiming that the colour of the Lubiana labels were similar to those of Veuve Clicquot – they weren't, although the difference was perhaps not quite as stark as in this new case.

Back in 2001 social media hardly existed, it will be interesting to see whether social media pressure this time can persuade Veuve Clicquot to back off realising that their ludicrous legal action damages the reputation of Veuve Clicquot Champagne. 

••

Interesting court judgment in Canada from 2006 where Veuve Clicquot failed in its attempt to stop a small chain of mid-priced women's clothes using the name Cliquot. Judges decided that shoppers sufficiently savvy to tel difference between Champagne and women's clothes.