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.'
