Comment by dmitriid | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dmitriid | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

1. So what?

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...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldovan_wine#Divin

> Imagine if no country could call whisky, well, whisky, and each country had to invent their own name for it.

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.

> you cannot make some whisky in, say, France, and sell it as "Scotch"

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.

> I'm actually totally fine with geographic specifications for a general name. Like "Scotch whiskey" vs. "Irish whiskey".

Wait, what are you complaining about, then? Cognac and Champagne are places.

And bourbon is the name of a French dynasty. And bubbles in champagne were popularized by the English and the English (re-)discovered all the necessary infrastructure for production and were the first to describe the process for it. And so on.

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.

Scotch whisky is a protected term in the EU and in other countries which sign up to the EU’s GI system. Brexit does mess with this system for new GIs, but not pre-existing ones like scotch whisky.

And don’t think you can just go calling your knockoff ‘scotch’ to get around it, either.

If it's Scotch, then it's "whisky", not "whiskey". Scotch Whisky has no "e".

In the U.S. and Ireland, "whiskey" is the accepted spelling. In Scotland and Canada, "whisky" is more common. These are just regional differences in spelling, and the proper usage will not be determined by where the drink is made but where the speaker is.

That's incorrect. "Whisky" is not simply a Scottish spelling of the word for grain spirit; in Scotland, an Irish or north-american spirit will be spelled with an "e".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com