Pinot Law

For wineries quite a bit, particularly when it comes to American Viticultural Areas, or “AVAs”. There is a great article in today’s San Francisco Chronicle regarding the ongoing rulemaking proceeding at TTB addressing TTB’s rules governing AVAs.

TTB’s proposals constitute a fairly broad rewrite to its existing regulations governing AVA designations. What I think the article does a great job of capturing, is the significant cost and expense associated with both brand names and AVA designations. By the former, I am referring to those wineries which have spent significant time and capital establishing a respected brand name. As the article points out, in some instances these brand names can be greatly diminished — and actually rendered moot — when it collides with an established AVA.

My personal opinion is that TTB has struck the right balance on this issue with its proposal. Specifically, the article discusses the ‘rolling’ grandfather clause, that would permit certain wineries to use their established brand name regardless of the presence of an AVA application. For example, if a winery named “Millers Ridge Mountain” was approved for TTB label purposes and in use for a certain number of years, it would not be blocked from continuing to use that name even if an AVA designation is subsequently established for “Millers Ridge Mountain.”

Of course, this does not mean that everyone in Virginia should start running out to name their winery “Napa Valley Winery.” If the TTB’s rules are adopted, they would only apply to yet-to-be established AVAs.

The other interesting issue discussed in the article is the veritable explosion in AVAs over the last several years. I think even if TTB tightens up its alleged ‘rubber stamp’ approval, you will continue to see even more AVAs down the road.

used under a Creative Commons License courtesy of Stewart.