Pinot Law

Wisconsin residents may still be reeling from the departure of their favorite son from Lambeau Field, but it looks like they will soon have something else to cheer about.  According to Free the Grapes, Wisconsin Governor James Doyle signed Senate Bill 485 which replaces the state’s current wine shipping law and will go into effect on October 1, 2008.

While this is certainly good news, one of the comments to the Free the Grapes  blog entry noted some valid shortfalls.  In particular, while Senate Bill 485 permits direct wine shipments to consumers, a winery may not sell wine directly to retailers and can only sell to wholesalers.  This same commenter noted that “What Wisconsin needs is a system that allows both in-state and out-of-state wineries to sell directly to retailers and consumers . . . [a]s for the wholesalers…do they really need protectionist legislation to survive?”

I could not agree more — and Wisconsin isn’t the only state with that problem.  Even Virginia, is still tinkering around with how to handle winery to retail shipments — nearly three years after the Granholm decision.

Anyway, for all you out there with an interest in Wisconsin other than football and cheese, I thought I would pass this along.

Welcome to Wisconsin used under a Creative Commons license  KATYA de countess of WIS.

Be sure to head over to Tom Wark’s Fermentation Blog to vote for the wine blog of the year. He has some notable ones over there including two of my favorites: the Ship Compliant Blog and Vinography. Hurry up, though. Voting closes on March 29th!

In the wine industry, insurance is critical. Crop insurance, liability insurance and now . . . nose insurance. I came across this story regarding winemaker and taster Ilja Gort who has insured his nose for about $8 million (USD). Of course, the insurance was provided by Lloyd’s of London.

Among the highlights from the insurance, Mr. Gort is not allowed to ride a motorcycle or be a boxer, knife thrower’s assistant or a fire-breather. He should also probably not carry Charlie Rose’s Mac Book.

Big Nose Strikes Again used under a Creative Commons license provided by bazusa.

The TTB announced late last week that it was expanding the footprint for two West Coast AVAs — San Francisco and Alexander Valley — and establishing a new AVA in Lehigh Pennsylvania. Wines and Vines has a good summary of all three approvals here.

What I find most interesting, however, is that TTB had put a hold on AVA processing last November. Last week’s action represents the first movement in this area since TTB instituted its rulemaking proceeding late last year regarding proposed changes to how it reviews and approves AVAs. It remains unclear how TTB will ultimately rule in its AVA proceeding, although the indications are that the AVA approval process could get more strict.

We will keep you posted, but in the meantime, keep your eye peeled for wine from the newest AVA region in Lehigh, Pennsylvania!

After the fiasco up in Maryland, it is great to see that the folks down in Georgia are getting it right.  Granted, Georgia already has a decent direct shipping law on the books.  But apparently their legislature is considering some changes that will make a good situation even better.

Under current Georgia law, certain restraints  are placed on wineries represented by a distributor.  A bill in the legislature — House Bill 1061 — would change all that.  It also includes a couple of more changes, including an increase in the amount of wine that can be shipped (from 5 cases per household per year, up to 12 cases per individual per year); drops the bond requirement; and other administrative items.  Hat tip to ShipCompliant for the details.

It’s great to see that some states such as Georgia are taking a good thing and making it better.  Of course, other other states — like Maryland — just cannot seem to get it right.

As many of you know, I have been following the developments relating to possible changes to Maryland’s direct shipment laws. Unfortunately, according to this article, things are not looking good. According to the article, a House of Delegates committee yesterday rejected one bill that would have let Maryland consumers buy wine directly from Internet merchants and wineries.

Because God forbid Maryland do what 35 other states are already doing. A Senate version of the bill was also debated late last week, although its chance of passage also appears slim. Of course, my favorite quote comes from colorful Maryland lobbyist Bruce Bereano, who represents the Licensed Beverage Distributors of Maryland. According to Bereano, these bills are bad news because “[i]f you make it so profoundly easy for national wine brands to get their product directly to consumers, they’re going to take out Maryland wineries.”

Let me translate that for you: “Please protect the interests of my clients (the distributors) at the expense of small, local wineries. It is fantastic public policy to: 1) deprive consumers of choice; 2) keep small wineries beholden to the interests of distributors; and 3) cut off potential tax revenue to the states for no good reason. Because everyone knows that when someone who enjoys wine wants that something special shipped to their house, they are going to order some Box o’ Wine over the Internet from one of those national wine brands.”  The irony of Bereano’s comment of course, is that by depriving small wineries of direct shipment options, you are just reinforcing the tremendous advantage already held by the national wine brands.

As a Virginia winery owner, I would love to ship into Maryland so that consumers could enjoy our wine. And let me translate that for all of the Maryland legislators out there who for whatever reason are opposed to this bill: “I want to give you tax revenue.”

BYOB used under a Creative Commons license provided by Rick.

There is an interesting entry today over Capitol Confidential regarding a bill in the New York General Assembly regarding wine ice cream. As Irene over at Capitol Confidential notes, the memo accompanying the bill is “as fun as its subject.” My favorite tag line from the memo? “There is no doubt that with the passage of this bill there will be no more whining for wine ice cream.”

Of course, many of the commenters to the post emphasize their apparent nerdiness, and I hope to do them one better. You see, I actually took the time to determine whether TTB had regulations regarding such a product. And of course, I was not disappointed.

Specifically, 27 CFR Section 17.133 of the TTB’s regulations provides guidance regarding food product formulas. Formulas for nonbeverage food products on TTB Form 5154.1 may be approved if they are unfit for beverage purposes, but approval does not authorize manufacture or sale contrary to state law (hence the New York State bill).

Among the examples TTB provides of food products that have been found to be unfit for beverage purposes is “ice cream and ices where only sufficient spirits are used for flavoring purposes.” In light of this, maybe I ought to talk to my brother about some wine ice cream for the Summer? Perhaps with a Viognier?

Screaming used under a Creative Commons license provided by Bombardier.

Following up on one of my earlier posts, it looks like Maryland may be one step closer to more consumer choice in wine shipping laws. This article reports that Senate Bill 616 will be heard by Maryland’s Senate Education, Health and Environmental Affairs committee this Friday, March 7, at 1:00 p.m.

If the Senate bill and its companion, HB1260, pass, Maryland consumers will soon be reaping the benefits of a more competitive market and increased consumer choice. Of course, this week’s hearing is open to the public, so I am sure that some will be comparing small farm wineries to the Godfather and Tony Soprano. Of course, I am hopeful that Maryland’s elected representatives will see through that smoke screen.

Interesting article over at Wine Business.com, regarding new developments in the expanding Virginia wine industry.

Specifically, there is a new custom crush facility that has just opened in the state. The new facility, just outside of Charlottesville, will serve independent growers interested in launching their own brands and winemakers creating their own labels. These guys started in 2007 with three clients and now have about a dozen in early 2008.

I find this development exciting for the Virginia wine industry. As the article notes, there are about 147 bonded wineries in Virginia, up from 96 just three years ago. This new custom crush facility will be a fantastic resource for a lot of Virginia wineries that may not have access to their own crush facilities.

There is something that has been troubling me lately. I have been reading a fair amount about AVA issues at the TTB. Particularly, they have one rulemaking proceeding addressing establishment of the Calistoga AVA, and another proposing broad changes to the AVA process. But in each of these proceedings, TTB — and even some of the commenters — seem to give short shrift to trademark.While I understand that TTB has broad authority with respect to labeling issues, does that authority trump trademark law? It seems to me that if the Patent and Trademark Office deems a trademark suitable for commerce, an argument could be made that the TTB lacks the requisite statutory authority to prevent the use of that trademark by a winery.

I examined some of the various AVA proceedings posted on the TTB website, and each makes passing reference to TTB’s view that wineries cannot use a designated AVA in their brand name, even if they have a trademark. At least one of the commenters in the Calistoga AVA proceeding raised a takings argument that a COLA is a protected property interest for purposes of the due process clause, requiring procedural due process before it may be revoked. They cited to the Cabo Distributing Co., Inc. v. Brady case, although this case seems to have a different outcome. But neither of these cases delve extensively into trademark issues?

Anyway, I thought it was an interesting issue and that I would throw it out there. If any of you have thoughts, feel free to comment.

The Law of Property in Shakespeare and the Elizabethan Drama used under a Creative Commons license provided by umjanedoan.