IP in the age of brand stretching
https://www.thedrinksbusiness.com/2016/12/yalumba-loses-signature-trademark-battle/
The idea of patenting a 'generic' term like signature, or estate, or proprietor's seems ridiculous to me. The whole point is to stretch your brand's equity from the parent brand name when you select a non-descript, inoffensive pseudo-noun for a brand extension. Otherwise you'd just create a new product altogether.
In France the major chateaux have a 2nd wine typically labelled as the '2eme' wine. In the case of some modern wineries, the second wine has been branded as a whole other entity (referred to as a 2nd label. One, in my opinion, is brand stretching, as the parent brand is clearly being utilized, and the second is clever innovative marketing but either way - it's not a new concept.
With no disrespect intended, I wonder why Yalumba spent the money to go to court on this. Being first to market on a ubiquitous term doesn't particularly strike me as proprietary, nor creative or inspired (neither of which are required in the world of trademark). However, I would like to think that an global brand of this size has counsel that would advise against wasting money on a seemingly moot point. Arguably the revenue from sales are probably very large and in this case, perhaps it is a David and Goliath fight or the fact that Yalumba would like to send a message about brand ownership. It could also be a case of reverse pyschology and a PR trick.
I think novice customers find brand stretching frustrating to understand and may not appreciate the innovation that a 2nd label represents. When you find your favorite wine brand on a cheaper bottle, it often ends in disappointment when the wine quality is not up to par with the parent brand. However, more experienced customers who have knowledge about the concept of brand stretching may have the pleasure of enjoying a quality product from their favorite producer at a lower price - with the understanding that their dollars are being spent on the company, not necessarily the juice. And that this concept protects the integrity of the parent brand, as only the truly quality production from that year would make the cut for the parent label.
The second frustrating point on this topic is that secondary product 'families' are proliferating at a dizzying pace. Many of us do not have time to remember what kind of breakfast we had, never mind the difference between the 'estate' and the 'limited edition'. Nothing is less enticing than having the product family hierarchy explained/pitched to you at $20 or $40 price point when you understand the economics of wine pricing and sourcing. In either case, whether novice or experienced, if a parent brand name is on that bottle, it will be DIRECTLY linked to the perceived quality in the bottle no matter what secondary name (estate, proprietor's, winemaker's etc.) you give it.... so plonk should probably be labelled as a separate brand entity. OR not at all if you want to protect your parent brand. Enter the confusion with 2nd labels and the idea that these products may not be sourced from the original vineyard property or be linked to the quality of the parent brand... they might be entirely seperate endeavors altogether, created by another winemaking team or facility in another region in some cases.
We must also understand that people love bargains and great value. So finding the right price point for a 2nd wine (brand stretching) is key. We can't all charge a premium for the 2nd labels as they do in Bordeaux, however, there is alot to be said for a 2nd label that is available in limited quantities, with an exciting and interesting concept or story.... AT THE RIGHT PRICE!
