Champagne is a brand for sparkling wine. People pay a premium (justified or not) for it.
My examples are even more unrelated than the beer, still the companies would likely defend their brand.
Miller is trying to pull itself up with the brand Champagne and is pulling the brand down. (If Miller is champagne of beers, what does it say about champagne as a sparkling wine)
yes, this is how some europeans see it. imo it’s absurd.
> Miller High Life has proudly worn the nickname ‘The Champagne of Beers’ for almost 120 years
seems to me european laws have become more ridiculous as time goes by. and the more ridiculous the more staunch defendants somehow.
Consider that each naming is often backed by a consortium, not a single company, and represent the whole process from selection of ingredients to the manufacturing, as a consumer I kinda know what to expect based on the naming
I can only see positively that not anyone from China or US can just export something and claim to be something else and probably make a Parmigiano with rat poison
Due to global warming, there are indications that ideal growing conditions are moving westwards towards the South of England. Established houses like Tattinger have been buying up vineyards in Kent.
I wonder what would happen to that protected name if parts of their raw material had no connection to that region of France.
lack of competition. protectionism. etc
> I see the usefulness of avoiding companies not being based in Emilia doing a cheese that is called Parmigiano, or not based in Naples doing Bufala, or Pachino..
I should be able to create all of those anywhere on the planet. there's nothing special about Naples or Emilia, no matter how much we wish it to be true.
> I can only see positively that not anyone from China or US can just export something and claim to be something else and probably make a Parmigiano with rat poison
zero probability of this happening, but the vein of this idea is actually quite common in Europe when it comes to discussing about the US and China.