Hacker News Reader

Comment by setr | Hacker News Reader

The problem though is you can easily imagine the correct conditions for producing the food/drink can be found (or artifically constructed) in any variety of places; the us protects a companies branding, but its very strange (to me at least) to protect a location's branding. Particularly on a type of production style.

If it ain't produced like wisconsin cheese, then fine, you shouldnt call it that, but if it's more or less equivalent, then who the hell cares if it was made in wisconsin versus ohio?

View on HN

But Champagne is a region in France. Wine made using the same method is known as "Methode Champenoise" (or, less commonly, "Cremant"). You can use either of those on your "Champagne" made elsewhere, but if it's not from the Champagne region you can't call it Champagne.

Seems reasonable enough to me.

Edit: That said, the case in OP does seem unreasonable - if they were attempting to use the word "Scotch" then it might be a different matter but I don't see why "Glen" should be protected.

Appellation protection is the lamest form of protection.

Nothing is special because it comes from a certain lat/long. Despite the fierce objections of sommeliers, "terroir" is cargo-cult pseudoscience.

Not being able to call bubbly wine "champagne" is like not being able to call a disc of ground beef between a sliced bun a "hamburger" because it wasn't grilled in Hamburg, Germany or not being able to call pizza "pizza" if it wasn't baked in Pisa, Italy.

Also out: Frankfurters, Vienna sausages, California rolls, Buffalo wings, baked Alaska, Worcestershire sauce, Mississippi mud pies, Peking duck, and Mayonnaise not made in Frankfurt, Vienna, California, Buffalo, Alaska, Worcestershire, Mississippi, Beijing, and Mayenne, respectively.

And forget about selling Monterey Jack cheese not made in Monterey, California.

FYI "pizza" has nothing to do with the city of Pisa.

Actually it likely comes from the latin verb "pansere", meaning "to press".

Even in the EU, not every origin name is protected. For instance, Gouda cheese may be produced anywhere, the Dutch were unable to get that name protected.

Assuming you'd be able to replicate Coca Cola's secret recipe close enough that no one can tell them apart, why wouldn't you be able to brand it as such?

This is very much the root of the issue.

The location branding is the reason why people are willing to pay an extra markup because there's an expectation of authenticity. Whether it has any impact on the product or not is irrelevant, it's purely marketing.

Also a notable difference between the US and Europe (and plenty of other places elsewhere) is the legacy / history which have contributed to a location's specialties and their fame.

It might sound ridiculous on your side of the pond but here folks do mind it.

I am on this side of pond, and it still sounds ridiculous to me. I don't think that someone who really wants to pay more for an imaginary taste of authenticity will not be able to read a place of production. Other consumers apparently don't care.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com