And then association with EU happened. Ooops, can't use those names anymore, you must devise new names for what is essentially the same exact product.
And then association with EU happened. Ooops, can't use those names anymore, you must devise new names for what is essentially the same exact product.
https://www.tmdn.org/giview/gi/EUGI00209900380
https://www.tmdn.org/giview/gi/EUGI00209900381
https://www.tmdn.org/giview/gi/EUGI00209900382
https://www.tmdn.org/giview/gi/EUGI00209900383
Some of those "protected wines" didn't even exist before the agreement and no one cares if they are protected, or not.
This is basically a "in exchange of a few thousand names [1] that you can never use even if you produce an identical product, we will protect some names many of which not even you care about, or weren't even ever used before this agreement".
2. That "protected spirit"? That's the new invented name for cognac.
As wikipedia puts it [2], emphasis mine:
=== start quote ===
Divin - represents the name, patented in the Republic of Moldova, of the country's brandy, produced in conformity with the classic technology of cognac production.
=== end quote ===
So, it's produced like cognac, looks like cognac, has the same ingredients as cognac, smells like cognac, tastes like cognac, but don't you dare call it cognac, invent a new non-sensical name to call it something else but cognac.
The same goes for dozens of other names. And we're talking only about wine and spirits. Imagine if no country could call whisky, well, whisky, and each country had to invent their own name for it.
[1] Annex XXX-C https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=15828875... and Annex XXX-D https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=15828875...
Well that's actually what happens, more or less: we do have Scotch whisky, Irish whiskey, and bourbon, and you cannot make some whisky in, say, France, and sell it as "Scotch".
For what it's worth, EU laws also struck Italy, which cannot sell "Tocai" wine no more (now it's called Friulano) because the name sounded too similar to the Hungarian "Tokaji" wine. Note that the similarity was in name only, the two wines are totally different otherwise. You gain some, you lose some.
I'm actually totally fine with geographic specifications for a general name. Like "Scotch whiskey" vs. "Irish whiskey".
But some things do reach ridiculous proportions like Greece, Bulgaria and Turkey all trying to lay claim to yoghurt.
Wait, what are you complaining about, then? Cognac and Champagne are places.
Names do get commoditized, regardless of their origin [1]. If Scotch whiskey is labeled as "Scotch whiskey", then it should only be fair to label "Champagne" as "Sparkling wine from Champagne" then wouldn't it?
Oh wait. "Scoth whiskey" apparently doesn't deserve protection (except in the UK), unlike Champagne.
[1] This reminds me of Google ebeing very unhappy when "google" entered dictionaries as a verb.
And don’t think you can just go calling your knockoff ‘scotch’ to get around it, either.
Nobody is stopping Moldovan alcohol producers from making sparkling or fortified wines, they just can't pretend its something else in the hopes of conning the consumer.
And no. As was discussed elsewhere in the comments this has nothing to do with "knock-off products"