#2--
That raises the further question: Is there a Saint Michelle?
#3--
Can't be sold under that name in France, though.
Australia conceded that one to the EU years ago. We used to have "claret", "port", "champagne" etc. That's one reason why Australia spearheaded the move toward varietal naming.
Fortified wines like Fine Tawny Port just changed to something like FineTawny
Just as we have "The Artist formerly known as Prince," we Americans ought to be able to come up with appropriate names for our wines, whether still or sparkling. It might require a bigger label, but how about "The fine, aged, sparkling wine formerly known as Champagne, from the House of Ernest and Julio Gallo"?
They just call it "sparkling wine" in Australia now. The good ones have built an international reputation, so they don't need to pretend to be anything else.
If it's "méthode champenoise" then they say that on the label.
In 1993, international protection was at the forefront of debate as the International Agreement of Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) recognized wine appellations as valuable intellectual property rights. Under provisions that took effect in 1996, many signatory countries (including the U.S.) have agreed to protect Geographical Indications (GIs). The Joint Declaration to Protect Wine Place & Origin was signed in 2005, and now has the support of 15 international wine regions.
The Center for Wine Origins has been hard at work to protect these GIs, and I have brought this issue to light last week. This particular problem is a little bit different—it focuses on an interesting loophole that exists in the current agreement, an exception that protects the continued use of geographic indications that were in trademarks and in actual use before TRIPS became effective. In the bilateral trade agreement, the term ‘champagne’ grandfathers’ U.S. producers using the name prior to 2005—the aftermath is evident as we continue to see U.S. producers such as Korbel’s ‘California Champagne’ on supermarket shelves.
But not all California houses capitalize on the grandfather law. Scharffenberger Cellar, for example, has made sparkling wine in Anderson Valley since 1981. Even though the letter of the law would allow them to use the Champagne term, they follow the spirit of the TRIPS agreement. Iron horse in Sebastopol follows this same spirit. They began making a sparkling Blanc de Noirs in 1980. Queries to Iron Horse lead me Laurence Sterling. I asked him if they have used the Champagne term in the past. “It is possible that on our first commercial releases we did indicate the wines were made using ‘Methode Champenoise,’ but I am not aware of any time we would have used the term Champagne instead of sparkling wine.”
More.
You don't see those names as much as you used to. When I was beginning my drinking career, almost all US wines seemed to be called something like champagne or chablis or sauterne (no final s) or burgundy. Now, and for the last forty years or so, it's almost all varietals.
The issue discussed at the link in OP is different. These are wines otherwise marketable in France, most likely under a varietal name, whose vineyard happens to call itself Château Montalena or Clos Duval. Illegal under current French law.
You don't see those names for American wine the way you used to
Chateau Ste. Michelle isn't so old, as winemakers go. From their website:
"Ste. Michelle Vintners planted its first vines at Cold Creek Vineyard in Eastern Washington in 1972."
"In 1976, Ste. Michelle Vintners built a French style Chateau in Woodinville, and changed its name to Chateau Ste. Michelle."
trusted partner
