Sour grapes.
Furious Frenchies tell Apple to bubble off: Bling iPhone isn't 'champagne'
French booze watchdogs have warned Apple that its decision to flog a blinged-up "champagne gold" version of the iPhone could end in a nasty court battle. Most Apple watchers now agree that the fruity firm is about to offer fanbois the chance to buy a garish gold phone, but the trade body that represents champagne makers has …
-
-
-
Wednesday 4th September 2013 12:40 GMT Otto is a bear.
Seriously? The margins on this fizzy wine probably exceed Apple's my several orders of magnitude, not to mention that some labels are part of world wide drink and luxury goods conglomerates with very deep pockets. Pity the footballer who names his daughter Champagne.
BTW There are better fizzy wines out there, from France (Cremants), New Zealand and the UK. They have all one prizes to prove it.
-
Wednesday 4th September 2013 13:06 GMT Crady
It's a trade protected word...
"The name Champagne is legally protected by the Treaty of Madrid (1891), which reserved it for the sparkling wine produced in the eponymous region and adhering to the standards defined for it as an Appellation d'origine contrôlée; the protection was reaffirmed in the Treaty of Versailles after World War I. Similar legal protection has been adopted by over 70 countries. Most recently Canada, Australia, and Chile signed agreements with Europe that limit the use of the term "champagne" to only those products produced in the Champagne region. "
Apple cannot it, they should stick with Cider lol
-
Wednesday 4th September 2013 07:05 GMT LarsG
Next thing is the Green Party copyright the colour Green, MUFC will copyright Red, Blue will copyright Blue, Goldman Sachs Gold etc etc.
Also I remember a number of cars use the colour, Dylux paint, need I say more?
I could understand the surrender monkey anger if the iPhone was an alcoholic drink but it isn't.
-
Wednesday 4th September 2013 08:45 GMT Anonymous Coward
Next thing is the Green Party copyright the colour Green, MUFC will copyright Red, Blue will copyright Blue, Goldman Sachs Gold etc etc.
You will already find that many (specific) colours are trademarks of various companies - e.g. think BP assert rights over the colour of green they use, EasyGroup definitely get litigious about people using orange (especially if they use the word "easy" as well)
-
Wednesday 4th September 2013 08:50 GMT Maharg
@LarsG
Well, no, that’s not the point, its use of the word ‘champagne’ which is essentially their brand.
The examples you give are incorrect, it would be like someone marketing their product as, “Manchester United Red”, “Goldman Sachs Gold” and “Green Party Green”
Their point is it’s almost the same as if they made a new type of wine and called it ‘Apple Mac Plonk’
Its the use of the name, not the colour.
-
Wednesday 4th September 2013 08:57 GMT Ross K
Next thing is the Green Party copyright the colour Green, MUFC will copyright Red, Blue will copyright Blue, Goldman Sachs Gold etc etc.
Also I remember a number of cars use the colour, Dylux paint, need I say more?
I could understand the surrender monkey anger if the iPhone was an alcoholic drink but it isn't.
Here's some money, go buy a fucking clue you idiot.
If you read TFA, the problem isn't the COLOUR. It's the use of the word CHAMPAGNE, which in the context of describing a product, has protection under a shitload of international treaties and laws.
So it's got fuck all to do with being a surrender monkey, and everything to do with a multinational company thinking it can do whatever it wants. It didn't come out on top against Apple Records,Cisco or Proview and I don't think it will in this case, should it decide to press on with this 'champagne' business.
-
Wednesday 4th September 2013 10:01 GMT I ain't Spartacus
I'm not sure about international agreements. The protected status works inside the EU, but as I understand it the US refused to recognise the protected status of the term, and so any old Californian fizzy white will say Champagne on the label. No Cava for Cook, even if the Frenchies all refused to sell him any of their stuff.
I don't know about the status of champagne in the rest of the world though. But I'd imagine champagne was a 'generic' term long before most countries had trademark systems up and running.
-
Wednesday 4th September 2013 10:25 GMT Anonymous Coward
@I ain't Spartacus:
Unfortunately you are incorrect. CIVC has successfully protected the Champagne mark against non-wine product trademark applications all over the world. Victoria's Secret and Champagne & Roses are just two who lost their cases.
The Champagne DOP enjoys seniority across the planet.
-
Wednesday 4th September 2013 10:43 GMT Ross K
I'm not sure about international agreements. The protected status works inside the EU...
There's a list of treaties and international laws as long as my arm that the US doesn't believe it needs to abide by. That doesn't mean the treaties or laws aren't valid.
The WTO TRIPs agreement (articles 22 and 23 in particular) is one of the many frameworks that protects geographical status, so you're totally wrong to say that champagne or stilton chese is only protected inside the EU.
the US refused to recognise the protected status of the term, and so any old Californian fizzy white will say Champagne on the label
Wrong again. Some Californian wineries are using the 'champagne' description, but only when the label says 'Californian champagne'. The US now acknowledges the exclusivity of the word champagne, and has banned its use on new wines since March 2006 - have a read of 26 USC § 5388 if you don't believe me.
-
Wednesday 4th September 2013 11:12 GMT I ain't Spartacus
Ross K,
Cheers for the correction. I know the US didn't recognise champagne back in the day, and didn't think that had changed. I guess the WTO have been beavering away on all this sort of stuff in the meantime.
I still notice Americans saying champagne when they mean sparkling wine, whereas people in Blighty are less likely to do the same, so the Frenchies may already have lost that cultural battle.
It'll probably turn out that Apple don't even have a plan to bring out a more blingy-goldy iPhone. And it's just more rumourgasm...
-
Wednesday 4th September 2013 14:47 GMT Irony Deficient
genericization
I ain’t Spartacus, you’re right, we do use the word “champagne” as a synonym for “sparkling wine”, much as Britons use “biro” for “ball-point pen” (“biro” is almost unknown here). This genericization kills trademark protection, which I guess explains why the tax code here is now used to protect appellations that in everyday conversations are otherwise generic.
-
-
Wednesday 4th September 2013 14:14 GMT Irony Deficient
26 USC §5388
Ross, Title 26 is Internal Revenue code, so your reference piqued my curiosity. Interestingly, §5388 (c) (3) (C) (ii) lists exceptions to that newfangled “semi-generic” exclusivity, among which are [1] alcohol content by volume below 7% or above 24%; and [3] lack of a brand name. (Exception [2] excludes wine sold in the US.) Thus, returning to I ain’t Spartacus’ comment, any old Californian fizzy white with a generic white label with just the word “CHAMPAGNE” in big black Arial Bold could still be offered for sale here, despite the §5388 ban.
-
-
-
Wednesday 4th September 2013 10:14 GMT Anonymous Coward
Ross think you need to learn a little about trademarks etc.
The cases you point to are because Apple Computers, tried to use a trademark belonging to someone in the same line of business.
They is absolutely no reason why I can't create Cisco Chip shops, Apple holidays or Proview sausages.
So get off your ill-informed arse and go learn something.
-
Wednesday 4th September 2013 10:51 GMT Ross K
Ross think you need to learn a little about trademarks etc.
Hey anonymous 'tard, why not use your real name?
Apple Records vs Apple Computers - both in the business of selling music. This dispute is famous - you might want to google it.
Cisco Systems vs Apple Computers - both selling a product called 'iphone'. Apple settled and both parties now use the 'iphone' name.
Proview Technology vs Apple Computers - Apple thought they had exclusive rights to the 'ipad' name in China, but they didn't. Apple had to pay up.
You appear to know fuck all about trademark law, or the story behind some of Apple's cases.
Your examples are bullshit and don't apply to the article. Yeah you could open a Cisco chip shop, but try making your own Cisco routers and let me know how you get on...
-
Wednesday 4th September 2013 12:22 GMT Anonymous Coward
Ross K (1 of 300,00 results on Google, so not exactly specific is it) learn to read....
"The cases you point to are because Apple Computers, tried to use a trademark belonging to someone in the same line of business."
So you are correcting me by stating that what I said was correct?
Interesting.
-
-
Wednesday 4th September 2013 12:19 GMT Anonymous Coward
Well, actually, yes, there is. It's called "parasitism". You think it'd be just considered a coincidence that you used a very well known brand name to sell your crap? That nobody would notice?
A quickly researched definition is this:
Parasitism practice: use of the reputation of another without this necessarily seeking to create confusion.
Not to be confused with straight infringement, then, which is copying existing stuff (so, creating confusion).
The most famous of such things in France was the milka.fr affair a few years ago. Also a combination of a name and of a color, by the way, and the defendant lost.
I'm glad I could help your own ill-informed arse ;-)
-
-
Wednesday 4th September 2013 12:01 GMT craigj
"It didn't come out on top against Apple Records,Cisco or Proview and I don't think it will in this case, should it decide to press on with this 'champagne' business."
Well.... It depends what you mean by "come out on top". They had to pay a fuck load of cash, but they still sell music using the name Apple and they still sell a device called "iPhone" and they still sell a device named "iPad" in china.
I'm not defending them, but their attitude of "do what we want and pay the fines later" does seem to work.
-
Wednesday 4th September 2013 16:15 GMT Happy Ranter
If you read TFA, the problem isn't the COLOUR. It's the use of the word CHAMPAGNE, which in the context of describing a product, has protection under a shitload of international treaties and laws.....
err.. wrong!
they can protect the name when it comes to a sparkling wine based product, however champagne gold has been commonly used as a colour for years Ford, Citroen and GM have all sold cars with colours described as "champagne gold". I'm pretty sure several of the large paint manufacturers have also had "champagne gold" in thier product line
Certain colours are protected because they are defined as a "brand icon" IBM Blue, Cisco are registered pantone colours. Champangne hasn't been defined. "“Champagne doesn’t have one single colour,” Charles Goamaere, CIVC’s legal director told the L’Union l’Ardennais newspaper." it is however generally accepted to be a pale brownish gold colour and saying something is champagne gold colour is not the same as trying to sell fizzy plonk
Personally, I think if CIVC took on someone who can afford the kind of legal costs apple can, they have more chance of nailing fog to a dog turd than winning that fight.
OTH Apple might just say up yours and not sell the phone in Europe
-
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 4th September 2013 11:46 GMT DanDanDan
Why the downvotes, I think Dragon Leaves is right
Generally, when an adjective is subjective, it precedes the noun it refers to. As an example "Un homme grand" means a large man, i.e. a tall man, whereas "Un grand homme" means a great man, a man of esteem/popularity/etc.
In this case, it's slightly open for debate which would be used, but I would say the frenchies would acknowledge their subjective bias and entitle it "horrible telephone".
-
-
Wednesday 4th September 2013 06:12 GMT Quidam
Too right too!
I wouldn't want to de-value my product either by allowing some orchard company try to compare their product to the wonderful liquid refreshment that champagne is! 400 years on, champagne is still champagne ... try running a fruity batphone after 4 years (if the battery powers it up) and see how well it compares...
-
Wednesday 4th September 2013 06:27 GMT Dazed and Confused
Re: Too right too!
> ... try running a fruity batphone after 4 years (if the battery powers it up) and see how well it compares...
And the Champagne will just get better with age, developing a delightful character. Would boys of Cupertino argue that a 25year old Mac was better than a brand new one?
-
-
Wednesday 4th September 2013 06:23 GMT Anonymous Coward
Natutrally
use of the word Champagne is protected under EU law ONLY for things related to Booze and the region from which it originates.
Method Champenoise can be used to describe other fizzy plonk that come from other places than Champagne which is made using the same methods as the real stuff.
However Les Frogs will ignore anything the EU says that might step on their toes. The Froggy Gov in Paris will not do anything to stop any protests either.
If Apple release an iPhone (and it is all speculation) with a champagne colour I full expect a convoy of Tractors to head for Paris and the Apple stores and sink them without trace. There is one thing that membership of the EU has taught me and that is 'Don't mess with French Farmers'. Anarchists have a lot to learn from that mob.
-
-
Wednesday 4th September 2013 07:45 GMT Khaptain
Re: Méthode Champenoise
I think that the correct name depends on exactly in which region the fabrication takes place.
La méthode champenoise is the term used when in the "région AOC Champagne".
La méthode traditionnelle is the term used for all the others ; Cremant, Bugey, Blanc de blancs etc....
-
-
Wednesday 4th September 2013 12:09 GMT Khaptain
Re: Méthode Champenoise
It depends on who you speak to.
In generale though, Blanc de Blancs is produced in the Champagne region. Blanc des blancs is a "champagne", that it to say that it is made in the Champagne region but it is made exclusively from Chardonnay grapes. ( no black grapes involved in the process).
The terme Méthode Champenoise would therefore probably be more correct than Méthode Traditionelle.
-
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 4th September 2013 06:30 GMT Shane McCarrick
My car's paint colour is Metalic Champagne/Gun metal Grey........
What the hell?
Totally aside from the fact that I find champagne over-rated in the extreme, and while I do drink wine, I'm actually a lot happier with a nice single malt- whats the issue with using what most people consider a term- for what that term is alleged to mean. For example- 'Premier' has a totally different meaning in English than it does in French- in French its a pedantry way to say the 'first' (whatever)- La premier voiture. It doesn't denote any special attribute- its simply the first in the line. The first car, shoe, child, book- whatever). In English- its given raz-mataz treatment- oooooh the Premier League........ (who cares..........)
Champagne is a sparkling wine. So what. So is Prosecco- and indeed the Spanish and Portuguese have their own versions too- and hold annual competitions to crown their local kings.
The French are just being touchy. Mind you- yon Fruity Firm has a remarkable history for absorbing other people's technology, other people's ideas , and not infrequently- other people's IP- and then fighting tooth and nail to have it acknowledged as their own.
We've moved past the Yanks hijacking European culture and mass marketing it for the masses as some sort of wonderful concept they came up with. Disney have ripped off the wonderful castles of Baden Wurtemberg. Show me a single food that the Yanks have actually come up with- as opposed to incorporating as their own- hotdogs aren't American- neither are doughnuts- or even milkshake. Coke is arguably an ancient South American tummy medicine- and probably best that we don't kick the corpse of KFC etc.
Champagne- is not a colour. If it were- would it be golden, or pink (or what the hell colour would it be). You can have a look at my nice 2004 Volvo and see if it fits the bill- I certainly don't think it does. Apple are trying to sprinkle some fairy dust here and suggest that calling something 'Champagne' mysteriously instils some 'Grand-Cru' status on their product. Nope. You got caught napping guys- go back chasing Samsung, misappropriating touchy French CDCs- isn't the shoe-in it used be............
-
Wednesday 4th September 2013 06:52 GMT A Non e-mouse
Making mountains out of nothing
Apple are trying to sprinkle some fairy dust here and suggest that calling something 'Champagne' mysteriously instils some 'Grand-Cru' status on their product.
Aren't we all making a mountain out of nothing? Apple hasn't announced or released a champagne coloured/styled/named device. All that has happened, is that "reliable sources" have said Apple might release a champagne/gold coloured phone.
-
Wednesday 4th September 2013 09:29 GMT Steve the Cynic
"For example- 'Premier' has a totally different meaning in English than it does in French- in French its a pedantry way to say the 'first' (whatever)- La premier voiture."
Not so pedantic, actually. Premier / Première is (are?) the normal French word(s) for 'first'(*). There's no pedantry about it, except mine: After "La" and before a feminine noun like "voiture", you use "première" and not "premier".
(*) But not for cases like "twenty first", which is rendered as "vingt et unième", sort of like "twenty oneth".
-
-
Wednesday 4th September 2013 07:19 GMT Joshua Murray
Vauxhall and Marantz?
I've previously owned two "Champagne" coloured things that weren't bottles of champagne.
A Vauxhall Astra and a Marantz tape deck.
The tape deck was definitely the cooler of the two.
Either way, there's history of the colour of things being called after the bubbly tipple.
Nothing new here!
-
Wednesday 4th September 2013 10:12 GMT Anonymous Coward
The CIVC may have a case. The Protected Designation of Origin they registered is limited to wines and wine products, but http://uk.practicallaw.com/0-295-8952?service=ipandit has a case where a brewer used the word "champagne" in relation to beer, and the ruling went against them. I quote:
A protected designation of origin is the name of a region, specific place or (in exceptional cases) a country which is used to describe an agricultural foodstuff or product that originates there and owes its quality or characteristics to a particular geographical environment in which the production and preparation of the foodstuff or product take place (Article 2(2)(a), EC Regulation on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (2081/92)). Champagne is a designation of origin relating to the Champagne region of France.
Article 13 of the Regulation gives wide protection to registered designations of origin, for example preventing them from being commercially used (directly or indirectly) for products that do not fit the relevant description, even if the true origin of the product is indicated (as in, for example, "champagne-style wine" or "imitation champagne").
Unfortunately, CIVC guards this PDO vigorously (as trademark owners should too), otherwise its cachet diminishes.
-
Wednesday 4th September 2013 10:57 GMT Chas
They shoot horses, don't they?
Considering the propensity of the French for the consumption of our equine friends, they surely would have issue with the International Champagne Horse Registry? Personally I think anyone who can't differentiate between fizzy wine and a colour descriptor has been consuming far too much of the former.
The French doth protest too much. methinks!
=:~)
-
Wednesday 4th September 2013 19:51 GMT MarketingTechnoDude
Geographical indications and also Colours.
Several instances listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographical_indications_and_traditional_specialities_in_the_European_Union
Interesting Newcastle Brown Ale was specific to Newcastle brewed ale. When they moved to Gateshead, they had to apply to have the restriction removed.
Interestingly, usually one of the most powerful things you can do in marketing is actually encourage your competitors (or in this case a different segment altogether) to use your category name .. it means that all the advertising, PR etc actually promotes just as much your category as it does their own.
I guess the argument here is that the original intention was to discourage other countries making what they considered to be inferior versions of the drink and therefore degrading the appeal of the product as time goes by. However, this one could argue, has slightly backfired, in that it prevents luxury brands in other sectors using the name as a description or even product line range.
Maybe this is all intentional for a fruity company to get lots of free PR and implicit association even if they loose in the end. By which time they will no doubt have a new model line up and will have moved on to a deep (shade of) Purple or something ... (Hmmm anyone making an "iWayStar" personal communicator? :-)
Kind of interesting though. Consumer electronics always reverts to safe colours ... Black to White to Silver to Black ... and every now and again just for a short while.. a range of colours or Gold's in between before reverting back to Black to White to Silver to Black... when they figure out that consumers prefer Black or White or Silver best. One wonders what on earth the PC industry was thinking with Beige coloured boxes in the 80/90's?
-
Thursday 5th September 2013 02:02 GMT Charles Manning
Put shoe on other foot
One might be tempted to argue that there should be no IP conflict because Apple isn't making wine.
But the French are arguing that using the champagne name attaches some extra value to the unit.
Putting the shoe on the other foot, Apple would likely get very pissy if a French wine company called its product iPhone wine.
-
Thursday 5th September 2013 07:46 GMT TheresaJayne
Well if you look up on wikipedia, it links to a document naming colours from 1955 so you can call a colour champagne as it predates the champagne name ruling.
ISCC-NBS Dictionary of Colo(u)r Names (1955)
So that means as lots have mentioned Green Party etc may try to limit our use of that colour that Grass is..
-
Thursday 5th September 2013 08:29 GMT Slx
The Champagne producers have always defended their trademark very heavily and I think they're right to do so. It's an traditional agricultural product that supports the livelihoods of a whole region of the French countryside and it predates iPhone by centuries but I think it deserves to be protected.
I think when it comes to trademark protection, Apple may have met its match in terms of legal firepower on this one.
You'll find that they're exceptionally well resourced (legally and financially) and will probably have the full backing of the French Government as they are extremely protective of the intellectual property of the wine industry. The agri-food industry (including wine) is huge and very valuable with something like €159 billion ($210bn) of revenues. It's a very big deal.
Given Apple's history of being very litigious about protecting its own IP, I think it's very much a case of what's good for the goose is good for the gander!