The Exclusivity of the Champagne Name in New Zealand
In the early 1980's, New Zealand's largest wine producer, Montana Wines (now part of the Pernod Ricard international winemakers group), introduced a new sparkling wine under the LINDAUER brand and described on the label as "New Zealand Champagne".
As opposed to the situation in Australia, where the term Champagne was regarded as being a generic term for any type of sparkling wine, it was arguable that, in New Zealand, with the wine industry still in its infancy, the term had not become generic or descriptive, and was still recognised as meaning "sparkling wine produced from grapes grown in the Champagne district of France".
At least this was the argument put forward by the CIVC, a semi-official government body in France set up to oversee the production and marketing of Champagne.
An interesting observation is that at the start of the proceedings back in 1982, a bottle of LINDAUER New Zealand Champagne cost $6, while a bottle of Moët Champagne cost $18.
Also, at this time, Montana was the largest producer of wine in New Zealand, enjoying around 40% market share.
Evidence gathered from the trade supported the view that the name Champagne was not a descriptive term, nor had it become generic. Instead it was associated with sparkling wine produced from grapes grown in the Champagne district of France.
Evidence from the public was not as conclusive, and favoured the view that it had become a generic term for all sparkling wine.
Most restaurant wine lists referred to non-Champagne sparkling wines under the heading of Champagnes, together with the genuine article.
The case was brought under the common law action for passing off - that Montana was passing off their sparkling wine under Lindauer New Zealand Champagne as and for the genuine Champagne product of France, and that the public were confused into believing there was a clear connection between the two.
Before the case went to Court, Montana decided to settle out of court and not use the name Champagne on its LINDAUER label on the basis that the CIVC took action to stop all imports into New Zealand of sparkling wine labelled Champagne.
As mentioned above, the name Champagne in Australia, was regarded as being a generic term. The largest producer of Australian Champagne at the time was Penfolds, who marketed a sparkling wine under Penfolds Seaview Champagne.
Penfolds strongly defended their use of Champagne on their locally-produced sparkling wine, and so the case headed to the High Court in New Zealand.
An additional action to passing off was added under the Fair Trading Act 1986, on the basis that Penfold's use of Champagne constituted misleading or deceptive conduct.
The High Court found for the CIVC on the basis of passing off, but not under the Fair Trading Act.
The CIVC decided to appeal on the basis of the Fair Trading Act finding, while Penfolds appealed against the passing off decision.
The New Zealand Court of Appeal found for the CIVC on both causes of action.
So, after a ten year battle the name Champagne was now exclusive to the French Champagne producers.
The Australian sparkling wine producers started using the term "Méthode Champenoise", but, after threats of further action by the CIVC, they backed down and started using "Méthode Traditionelle" instead.
Now, you will find no use of the name Champagne by New Zealand or Australian sparkling wine producers on their sparkling wine labels, so it ended up as a double victory for the French Champagne producers.
By the way, a bottle of LINDAUER sparkling wine now costs around $15, whereas a bottle of Moët Champagne retails at around $75.
This shows the value of exclusivity now that the Champagne producers are able to exclusively use the name Champagne.
