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.   

CIVC v Champagne Jayne: Day 4 – Fizzical battle paused

Despite the pressure and bullying by the CIVC Jayne remains loyal

'One of my favourite Champagnes – Louis Roederer'

Mildly ironic in view of this week's trial that Louis Roederer 

sponsors wine writer awards!

Graeme Lofts reports from Melbourne 
After three days of argument and aggressive cross-examination of Champagne Jayne by lawyers representing The Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne (CIVC), the opposing parties have agreed overnight to mediation during the first week of March next year in an attempt to reach a settlement. If a settlement is not reached, the case will resume in Melbourne’s Federal Court on 10th March 2015, so the Champagne Jayne case on hold.

The CIVChas been seeking to demonstrate that by using the business name Champagne Jayne, Rachel Jayne Powell has deceived her clients at her Champagne tastings and social media posts by referring to other sparkling wines, thereby tarnishing the Champagne brand.
 

Ms Powell has denied misleading her clients and presented evidence showing that she has always clearly distinguished between Champagne and sparkling wines from other regions of France and other parts of the world. She has argued that it is necessary to discuss and taste other sparkling wines in order to ensure that, while vigorously promoting the Champagne brand, she must also show it in the context of the diverse category of sparkling wines, in part to add to her credibility as a Champagne expert.

The accusation that Ms Powell has tarnished the Champagne brand as Champagne Jayne is somewhat difficult to understand given that she has been honoured with the title Dame Chevalier by the Ordre des Coteaux de Champagne, the official fraternity of the major champagne brands, authored an award winning book entitled ‘Great, Grand & Famous Champagnes: Behind the Bubbles’ and been named International Champagne Educator of the Year 2012 by Harper’s Magazine.

In a rather one-sided battle, the action of the CIVC, which has formidable financial resources, a large team of lawyers and well-known for litigation to protect the Champagne brand, has placed Ms Powell, a sole trader with a turnover believed to be less than $100,000 per year, in a precarious financial situation and could force her into bankruptcy. 

As part of the agreement to attempt to reach a settlement Ms Powell is forbidden from communicating with journalists and “other third parties” about the case and is unable to comment. 

Graeme's reflection on the case:
'On reflection, I am wondering why the CIVC has chosen to attack and destroy Jayne Powell’s reputation and business rather than take advantage of her knowledge of Champagne, her ability to educate wine consumers about Champagne and her impressive credentials. I have no doubt that as Champagne Jayne, Ms Powell has had a positive impact on the Champagne brand in both Australia and the UK. Why not work with her rather than against her? In this way both sides would be winners.'

Jim's comment:
I entirely agree with Graeme's measured reflection on this case. I cannot imagine that their apparently single-minded pursuit of Champagne Jayne has won the Champenois many friends. Instead I suspect that for many in the wine trade the CIVC and by extension all Champagne producers this pursuit has shown them as cold hearted bullies prepared to crush one of their friends and advocates. Whether this reprensible and thuggish behaviour has a reasonance outside the wine trade is another question.
 
I wonder who instigated this offer of mediation? Did Champagne (CIVC) blink I wonder? Did they decide that they hadn't landed a KO blow on Champagne Jayne and could lose the case? It is surely likely that if Jayne Powell had offered mediation the CIVC would have taken this as an admission of defeat.

Back in March 2014 the court had ordered mediation but it proved unsuccessful. I've no idea of what was offered but I suspect that the CIVC played hardball as they have through out this case. It would have been in Jayne's interest to find an honourable compromise. Hopefully the mediation in March 2015 will be meaningful and a solution will be found.

Many thanks once again to Graeme for his fine reporting on the case.


  

Fizzical battle – Day Three – Round 3 : CIVC try to KO Champagne Jayne

Graeme Lofts reports from the Federal Court in Melbourne where Jayne Powell 'Champagne Jayne' spent a long day in the witness box.

'Champagne Jayne fights back 

During the third day of the Federal Court hearing in Melbourne in which sole trader and champagne expert Rachel Jayne Powell, aka Champagne Jayne has been taken on by the Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne (CIVC), the protector of the exclusivity of the Champagne brand,  Ms Powell denied that she is misleading Australian consumers into believing that Australian sparkling wines were in fact Champagnes.

During cross examination of Ms Powell by the CIVC’s barrister a small selection of video clips of champagne tasting functions presented by her in the name of Champagne Jayne was shown. In each case presented, the function commenced with a blind tasting of an Australian sparkling wine. The CIVC’s view is that in doing this Ms Powell is promoting wines other than Champagne as well as causing those attending the functions to confuse Australian sparkling wine with Champagne.

Ms Powell argued that she opens some events with a blind tasting of an Australian sparkling before presenting a range of champagnes to maintain her credibility by showing that Champagnes are a unique and special category of sparkling wines and to highlight the different qualities of sparkling wines produced in different regions of the world.  Ms Powell vehemently denied that by doing this she caused confusion between Champagne and other sparkling wines.  Further video evidence presented later by Ms Powell’s barrister showed her clearly distinguishing between Champagne and other sparkling wines at such events.

Images on Champagne Jayne’s website and social media pages of bottles of champagne, Australian sparkling wine and sparkling wines from other French or European regions were shown by the CIVC’s barrister, who questioned how those viewing the images would know which were Champagne and which were not. In response Ms Powell pointed out that those that were Champagne had the word ‘Champagne’ clearly printed on the bottle label. Those that were not champagne did not have the word ‘Champagne’ on the label and in most cases had the region or country of origin printed on the label, for example; Yarra Valley, Tasmania, Product of England. She saw no reason for confusion.

Ms Powell was also accused of promoting one particular Tasmanian sparkling wine by using it on several occasions in a blind tasting as a segue into the tasting and discussion of Champagnes. Ms Powell denied that she was promoting that particular wine and was merely using it to demonstrate that there is more to a sparkling wine than its label. She believes that characteristics of sparkling wines are products of terroir and the skill and methods of the winemaker. And of course, anyone who knows Champagne Jayne knows that she believes that there is no better sparkling wine than Champagne.

Champagne Jayne’s opponents suggested that that many Australians, including many of those who attend functions at which she presents and who follow her on social media believe that all sparkling wines were Champagne and would be easily confused when she presented an Australian sparkling wine in addition to several different Champagnes. Ms Powell disputed this, pointing out that most, if not all of those who pay to attend her Champagne events, visit her website and follow her on social media are very much aware that the label ‘Champagne’ only refers to sparkling wine produced in the Champagne region. She takes delight in knowing that the few who are not aware of the exclusivity of Champagne to the Champagne region of France will become aware of it as a result of her presentations and posts.
 

Following the allegation that Ms Powell’s use of the word ‘ambassador’ on her website suggests that she is an official representative of the Champagne brand, she explained that she had already done her best to remove the word from the site and undertook to remove any remaining instances of its use.

The hearing moves into its last day tomorrow, with final submissions from lawyers of the CIVC and Ms Powell. A decision is expected early in the New Year.'

My grateful thanks again to Graeme for his excellent report. 

The report on Day One is here and Day Two here. 

 

Fizzical battle – Day Two – Round 2 : Champagne Jayne in the box

'Champagne Jayne's Twitter page 

 

Graeme Lofts reports from the Federal Court in Melbourne:

The battle continues . . .  Day 2

The courtroom battle between Australian wine educator and media personality Champagne Jayne and the France’s  Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne (CIVC) over her use of the word ‘Champagne’ resumed in Melbourne’s Federal Court today.  Champagne Jayne is the business name and trademark of Rachel Jayne Powell, who has been passionately promoting champagne as a wine expert, broadcaster, journalist and presenter for more than ten years. Amongst other accolades Ms Powell has been awarded the title of Dame Chevalier of the Ordre des Coteaux de Champagne and won a Gourmand World Wine Book Award in Paris for her book ‘Champagnes, Behind the Bubbles’. 

The second day of the hearing before Hon Justice Jonathan Beach began today with a statement by Ms Powell’s lawyer indicating that she has already taken action to avoid creating the impression that she is endorsed by that CIVC by removing the terms ‘ambassador’ and ‘global ambassador’ from her website, social media and other promotional material. Ms Powell has undertaken not to present herself as an ambassador of the Champagne brand and to clarify her independence from any French Government organisation. Ms Powell made it clear that this is not an admission that she has done anything deliberately to mislead consumers.

Ms Powell then took the witness stand and in response to questions from her own lawyer stated that she always distinguished between Champagne and other sparkling wines to ensure that she did not cause confusion, and that she had never been asked by any of the Champagne producers appearing in videos on her website or social media pages to remove the videos.

A number of videos were shown and transcripts of tweets and other social media interactions were presented by the CIVC’s lawyer during the cross examination of Ms Powell. These exhibits were examples of what the CIVC considered to be misleading behaviour, deceptive conduct or a tarnishing of the Champagne brand. Ms Powell explained that the occasional use of sparkling wines other than Champagne was the exception rather than the rule, but was sometimes part of the process of educating consumers about Champagne and distinguishing it from other sparkling wines. She pointed out that Champagnes represented only 10% of sparkling wines produced worldwide and that her occasional use of other sparkling wines gave her Champagne education context. She denied that she had done anything to tarnish the Champagne brand.

During her cross-examination Ms Powell was presented with a 282-page print out of Champagne Jayne’s roughly 3400 Twitter followers (as of 16.12.14 Powell has 3444 followers on Twitter – JB). She was asked whether she knew them all and could be sure that they knew enough not to be misled. 

After almost two hours of cross examination of Ms Powell, the hearing was adjourned until tomorrow morning, when her cross examination will resume. In the meantime Ms Powell is not permitted to speak to her legal representatives.  

The report on Day One is here. 

My grateful thanks to Graeme for his fine report.

  

Fizzical battle – Day One : CIVC takes on sole trader – Champagne Jayne

 

Champagne Jayne's Facebook page  

Graeme Loft’s report on Day One of Jayne’s ‘trial’ Day 1: 15/12/14

'Champagne Jayne' on Trial
'The final chapter in the year-long dispute between France’s protector of the exclusivity of the Champagne brand, the Comité Interprofessionnel  du Vin de Champagne (CIVC) and Australian wine educator Rachel Powell, better known as Champagne Jayne, began in the Federal Court of Australia today before Hon Justice Jonathan Beach.

In July 2012, Ms Powell’s trademark ‘Champagne Jayne’ was accepted by IP Australia, the Australian Government agency that administers intellectual property. The CIVC  wants the Federal Court to force Ms Powell to withdraw the trademark and its use on her website, Facebook, Twitterand other social media accounts.

The CIVC has accused Ms Powell of misleading or deceptive conduct by using the name Champagne Jayne while also promoting other sparkling wines.  It also accuses Ms Powell of profiting from the use of the name Champagne in her trademark Champagne Jayne and of tarnishing the Champagne brand.

The CIVC’s team of lawyers argued that Ms Powell had deliberately or inadvertently created the impression that some Australian and other sparkling wines were champagnes or were “as good as or better than” champagne. They also suggested that by using the name Champagne Jayne, she had presented herself as an approved representative of the Champagne industry. These accusations were strenuously denied by Ms Powell’s lawyer.

Video evidence from television broadcasts and social media was provided to demonstrate that since she registered Champagne Jayne as her business name in 2009 Ms Powell has passionately promoted champagne as a wine expert, broadcaster, journalist and presenter. (Jayne Powell started using Champagne Jayne for her business in 2003 and then in 2009 registered it as her business name.)  

While the CIVC’s lawyers argued that Ms Powell’s presentation of other sparkling wines on television and social media was misleading and tarnished the Champagne brand, the videos showed that Ms Powell always made a clear distinction between champagne and other sparkling wines. There was no evidence of deception.  Ms Powell’s lawyer also provided evidence that her presentation of sparkling wines other than champagne was occasional.

Champagne Jayne’s apparent recognition in France itself as a promoter of Champagne was highlighted, including her title as Dame Chevalier, awarded in 2012 by the Ordre des Coteaux de Champagne, the official fraternity of the major champagne brands. In the same year she was awarded International Educator of the Year at the Champagne Summit in London and a Gourmand World Wine Book Award in Paris for her book ‘Champagnes, Behind the Bubbles’.

The trial will continue tomorrow (Tuesday 16^th December 2014).' 

My grateful thanks to Graeme for his report from the Federal Court in Melbourne. I look forward to receiving his report on Day Two.

Jayne Powell (Champagne Jayne) videos on YouTube. 
Jayne Powell (Champagne Jayne) videos on Vimeo.

Champagne Jayne's trial starts tomorrow in Melbourne

When Channel 7 The Morning Show met Champagne Jayne 

The contest between the CIVC (Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne) and Champagne Jayne (Jayne Powell) kicks off early tomorrow morning in Melbourne, Australia. Estimated to last four days the CIVC will be seeking to prove that, as well as profiting from the name Champagne, Champagne Jayne has also tarnished Champagne's reputation.

In this edition of The Morning Show (above) Jayne does praise Champagne and recommends four Champagnes. She also recommends two non-Champagne for when you have a crowd and opting to serve Champagne to everyone is just too expensive. There is also a blind taste at the end with the two presenters with a Champagne (Mumm) and a non-Champagne – Arras from Tasmania.

Watch the video – is she tarnishing the image of Champagne and is she profiting from its reputation 

Champagne Jayne holds up: 'Save water drink Champagne' 

Australian author Graeme Lofts will be covering the trial for Jim's Loire.  

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.

Matthew Jukes: Wine Rules, Melbourne 21st November

 

Homeless in London@outside a tube station 

If you happen to be in Melbourne (Australia) this Sunday, go along to Wine Rules held in Albert Park and help to raise money for the homeless

The excellent initiative is the brain child of wine writer Matthew Jukes, who started a similar initiative in Adelaide in 2005. It's an opportunity to taste the local wine, while watching teams from the wineries playing touch rugby.   

From Wine Rules site:

'Matthew Jukes - brings Wine Rules to Victoria

My passion for Aussie wine is unquantifiable – Australia is quite simply the most exciting winemaking country in the world and I believe that the wines are the finest value on the planet.

I often feel that I owe Australia a great debt of gratitude for welcoming me into its great winey heart so enthusiastically. And one morning in Adelaide I figured out exactly what I could do to make a difference. I found by walking around the city, that there was a disproportionately large number of homeless people sleeping rough. This, I discovered, was true of other Aussie cities. I have always felt that homelessness is one of society's biggest single issues and in Australia, with its beautiful people and seemingly wonderful healthy lifestyle, homelessness seemed to me even more unforgivable.

I came up with the idea of a wine-tasting event, with winery sponsored footy teams going head-to-head. That was in 2005 and Touch Wine in Adelaide has raised significant funds for Hutt Street and the wine trade has taken this initiative to heart. Now we are bringing this to Melbourne.'

For more information see www.winerules.com.au.

List of wineries pouring wines on 21st.