Winery Loses Trademark Suit Against Other Winery Over The Term 'Signature'

from the drink! dept

I'm going to keep ringing the warning bell about how the explosive growth in the beer and wine businesses has resulted in a similar explosion in trademark disputes until people start listening. An industry that has benefited from so much interest and competition is eventually going to find itself with a massive litigious roadblock on its hands if something isn't done. That said, the typical trademark dispute in the alcohol spaces normally deals with fairly creative names, artistic labels, or cross-industry trademark concerns. Less common are the types of trademark disputes in which the trademark in question is laughably broad or common.

Less common, but not completely absent, however. In Australia, for instance, one winery sued another over a trademark it holds on the word "signature." The suit failed for exactly the reasons you're thinking of.

Yesterday the court dismissed an application by Yalumba against the Jacobs Creek Reserve Barossa Signature range, which claimed the Pernod Ricard term infringed on the Yalumba trade mark, “THE SIGNATURE”. The fight was provoked by Yalumba owner Robert Hill-Smith when Pernod Ricard released three Jacobs Creek red wines in September 2015 with “Barossa Signature” on the label.

In her judgment today, Natalie Charlesworth said the case came down to three questions: whether Pernod Ricard used the words “Barossa Signature” appropriately under the Trade Marks Act, whether it was deceptively similar to the Yalumba Trademark, and whether Pernod Ricard used the term “in good faith to indicate the kind, quality, intended purpose, geographical origin or some other characteristic”.

In the ruling itself, Charlesworth goes on to answer those three questions, though she stops herself after the second of them. She reasons that if Prenod Ricard used the words appropriately under the law, as she affirms, and that such use is not going to confuse the public into the origin of the product, as she also affirms, then the answer to the third question doesn't matter. She goes on to note the differences in trade dress and also notes that the trademarked term "The Signature" is devoid of origin-defining value. Therefore, the lawsuit is dismissed.

As is typical, the ultimate fault for all of this is upon whoever thought approving a trademark for a term like "signature" for an industry overflowing with "signature" labels was a good idea. The term is generic in identifying premier products within a brand. It's used all over the place. How this trademark application ever passed the smell test in Australia is beyond me.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    athe, 21 Dec 2016 @ 6:16pm

    Smell test...

    When you're importing a lot of your culture from other countries, you're bound to import the bad as well, such as the growing number of frivolous lawsuits, or those trademark officers who think that any word in the English (US) language is worthy of trademark protection...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Christenson, 21 Dec 2016 @ 8:21pm

    Ham Sandwiches

    Right now, I bet I can:
    Indict a ham sandwich (H/T Ken White of Popehat)
    Patent said ham sandwich
    and
    Trademark it too!

    All I need is a few quid...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2016 @ 5:05am

    I hope they both go belly up, and will no doubt stick it to the taxpayer in the process.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2016 @ 8:17am

    How this trademark application ever passed the smell test in Australia is beyond me.

    Perhaps the mark design was sent to the trademark office in the form of labels on full bottles of product - which the person in charge consumed all the contents thereof before deciding to approve the application.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Kronomex, 22 Dec 2016 @ 2:18pm

    I'm going to patent the word patent and then sue anyone who uses patent because I'll own the word patent. It's patently...oh goody, I'll patent "patently" as well. I'll be rich I tell you rich.In fact I'll patent all words that use patent and any other derivations of patent. The power, the power...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2016 @ 4:56pm

    Whinery

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Hooter McBus (profile), 22 Dec 2016 @ 8:16pm

    Charlesworth

    Rare to see a matter so close to home.

    Justice Charlesworth is a newly appointed Federal Court Judge in South Australia. She young and is very highly regarded in the legal industry. I'm not surprised that she gave such a well-reasoned and correct decision.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.