I know that in the EU, any wine made outside the Champagne region of France can’t legally be called champagne, and similar laws exist for many other products named after an actual place. Could manufacturers call it “Champagne-style …” like so many American food companies do?
For example, around easter, dollar stores are full of “chocolate flavor” bunnies, and almost everybody has seen the “pastuerized process cheese food” (aka American cheese). However, unlike those examples, I assume European law would require the qualifiers to have equal size/prominence as the terms they’re modifying.
Just to be pedantic, but “processed cheese food” and “American cheese” are two different things. The former has dairy products like whey, milk, cream, etc. added. The latter is just several different cheeses processed together.
As for the wine, I think the answer is yes and no. You can identify your wine as “Methode Champenoise,” but that’s about it.
But that’s pretty much the same example used by the OP, except they gave the hypothetical label text in English (“Champagne-style”) and you gave a nearly equivalent description in French (“Methode Champenoise”). Is there something about the laws that prohibits sparkling wine made “in the style of Champagne” from being labelled as such in English?
“Methode Champenoise” has more to do with the method the sparkle was achieved with rather than taste/flavor/etc. You could use that method to turn out cream soda and still label it “Methode Champenois.” All that is required is secondary fermentation in the bottle. Home brewers do it all the time with their beer, and that stuff resembles champagne only in that they are both bubbly and liquid.
But based on some cursory research, I think you can label some cheap knock-off sparkling wine “Champagne-style.” But the label has to have that in big, bold letters, not hidden on the back somewhere. At least that is the rule for cheeses.
In the EU I don’t think you can use the word “Champagne” for anything that doesn’t qualify for the protected designation. Thus “Champagne-style” would not be allowed (except, ironically, for actual champagne, but it’s hard to imagine any champagne producer using it). “Méthode champenoise” is permitted because (a) it’s explicitly a description of the method of production rather than of the finished product, and (b) it doesn’t employ the word “champagne”. Plus producers actually prefer it, since in anglophone territories it’s perceived as classier by consumers than “champagne-style”, which just emphasises that the product you are buying is not, in fact, champagne.
Perhaps more in the spirit of the OP, there is a area of Austria known as Styria that is known for their hops, known as “Styrian Goldings”. This is interesting because the local Styrian hops were disease-prone and, nearly a hundred years ago, Styrian hop growers asked Brittan for some hops that they could grow locally. They asked for some British Hops known as “Goldings”, but were sent a variety known as “Fuggles” instead. Nobody noticed the mistake, and the hops sent to Styria grew better than the local hops since they were disease resistant. Because of this, hops known as “Styrian Goldings” became popular among brewmasters.
Now, hops are generally propagated through root cuttings, known as rhizomes, which assures genetic consistency. Hops do produce seeds, which may be hybrids or even mixes between strains. Nobody really knows exactly what occurred in Austria decades ago, so at best, “Styrian Goldings” are described as a descendant of British Fuggles, but traditionally, they have been referred to as “Styrian Goldings”.
The region referred to as “Styria” is/was part of what became known as Slovenia. With the breakup of the Soviet Union and the acceptance of the state Slovenia into the EU meant the products of Slovenia had to meet the labeling requirements of the EU. That meant that hops that had previously been sold under the name “Styrian Goldings” could no longer use that name, since it was pretty much a generic name for hops from that area and not one for a specific strain.
What this all means is that suppliers of hops from this area of the EU have had to change the name of their product to conform to the EU labeling laws, resulting in more confusion to the consumers than before.
I don’t even think you can use Methode Champenoise. NZ sparkling wines used to use that, but were sued by the EU appellation controller and now use Methode Traditionnelle as the qualifier.
But fairly recent (only in the last 5 or 6 years). For whatever reason, in Aus “Methode Champenoise” was not part of the original agreement between France/EU and Aus which restricted use of the term “Champagne”
Champagne fight as hard for their name as McDonald’s do - which is to say very hard. It’s not just the method, but where the grapes are grown, and the French ‘appellation controlee’ dictates which vineyards are ‘champagne’ and which are not. You can imagine how much difference this makes to the value of the land.
They don’t always win though:
Babycham was a much-advertised substitute for ‘real’ champagne but made from pears instead of grapes. It was sold in tiny one-glass bottles and served in a champagne saucer with a cherry on a stick.
There are many protected products: Cornish pasties have “protected geographical indication” (PGI) status, as do Melton Mowbray pork pies. Aylesbury duck, on the other hand, is considered generic and they do not have to come from Aylesbury. Yorkshire puddings, Scotch Pies and many others are not so protected.
There are 4543 words in the original, unamended American Constitution, including the signatures. The Regulation on the common organisation of the market in wine (No 1493/1999),[6] runs to over 46,000 words
Following a 2006 trade agreement between the USA and the EU it is illegal for a US winery to create a new wine label using the word Champagne. Some US brands (Korbel, etc.) were grandfathered and continue to use the word – but those are not wines respected by the hoity-toity. There are “good” American sparkling wines but those that call themselves Champagne are not considered good wines by those who know such things.
Champagne not only must be made in the Champagne region of France, it must be made from three specific varieties of grapes, it must be fermented in the bottle in the traditional method, must be aged a minimum amount of time, and a few other requirements.
I would imagine the classic test is “likely to cause confusion”. That’s the usual test for trademark. You can’t use the word(s) “coca cola” or “McDonald’s” to describe a soft drink or restaurant respectively, nor can the packaging look like those products. As mentioned, international treaties restrict the use of such trademarks in most places around the world. Using “Champagne-style” one could argue the person glancing at the bottle would simply see the word “Champagne”. At least in French, “champenoise” doesn’t look as close to “Champagne”. (Although I have no idea how a francophone would interpret the word - too close to the name “Champagne”? After all, I doubt a soft drink could get away with calling itself “Cokish drink”
I’m not entirely sure that the standards applied to GIs (geographical indicators/geographic indications) are exactly the same as those applied to trademarks.
At one time the EU was considering protecting “Cheddar” as a designation for cheese, but seems to have ruled that it’s too generic. Which is good since there’s a zillion cheddar cheeses out there. Instead they protect “West Country Farmhouse Cheddar”. Unfortunately, they didn’t have the wisdom to rule the same for “Parmesan” despite the zillion of those on the market.
I’m not sure that “wisdom” enters as a strong force into setting GI protections. There are a lot of products protected as GIs in Europe that in America describe types of goods.
Aren’t the AOC/DOCG type laws country-specific? As in a French AOC (appellation d’origine controllee) wine has to meet certain French standards, and a DOCG (Denominazione di Origine Controllata e Garantita) wine has to meet certain Italian standards? I thought the EU’s role in that sort of thing was to ensure that those sorts of things ARE respected between member states, and between member states and the outside world.
Typically what these national standards mean is that a wine is made in a defined place, using a defined set of ingredients from that place via a defined process, and sometimes there’s a quality component as well.
So any legislation the EU has about that kind of thing would almost by definition be broad enough to encompass member states’ stuff as well as provide some protection for products from countries without their own legislation.
Calling local non champagne wine Champagne in EU is a big no-no. If you want Champagne, you’ll will get the real one. With price to go. For all others similar wines we just had to invent new or re-invent old names. Like, you know, sparkling wine, spumante (frizante), shaumwein (sekt), penina … Usually derivated from "spark or “foam”. And some of them are geographically challenged too. And there is a lot lot of similar examples with other foods, drinks and some other goodies. But you know what. Not every cola is coca-cola. Pepsi fine too.
A lot of fighting for food naming rights in EU. A LOT. But I still prefer food fights over nuclear ones.