Tag Archives: intellectual property

Winebits 669: Halloween wine, expensive wine, intellectual property

halloween wine
“Trick or wine?”

This week’s wine news: Dress up like a box of wine for Halloween. Plus, Eric Asimov on why we can’t afford the world’s great wines and intellectual property rights vs. the First Amendment.

• The right costume? Want to be a box of wine for Halloween? A Detroit radio station reports that Franzia is making that possible. “The Francia boxed wine costume is only $25 and comes in two flavors, Chillable Red and Sunset Blush.” There is also a wine backpack, so you can drink wine while you look like it. No word on how many points the costume gets, though I wouldn’t be surprised if someone, somewhere, gave it a score.

• No great wine for us: The New York Times’ Eric Asimov rants about one of the Wine Curmudgeon’s favorite topics: The ridiculous prices of the world’s great wines. “Among the many ways the rich are different from you and me: Only they can afford grand cru Burgundy. That wasn’t always the case. … For example, back in 1994, a bottle of Comte Georges de Vogüé Musigny 1991, a grand cru, retailed for $80 (the equivalent of $141 in 2020, accounting for inflation). Today, that bottle costs about $800.” The piece is well worth reading, and speaks to a post I’m working on for next week about the absurdity — and even obscenity — of expensive wine prices.

• Nuts to the First Amendment: Because, of course, there’s money involved. The Libation Law Blog reports that “Beer, wine, and liquor trade groups are coming out of the woodwork” to support an appeal by Jack Daniels whiskey against a parody dog toy called Bad Spaniels, which looks like the Daniels bottle. Their support comes despite long entrenched and well-established First Amendment protection for parody, satire, and the like that made it possible for me to write this. Or this. Or this. But in the second decade of the 21st century, getting rich trumps all. Sadly, this is not the first time we’ve seen the wine business throw its weight around, spouting intellectual property. So nuts to you, beer, wine, and liquor trade groups. I’m going to look for one of these for Churro, the blog’s associate editor. Then he can write a post about playing with it.

Winebits 665: Restaurant wine, intellectual property, legal weed

This week’s wine news: High-end restaurants are selling their wine collections to raise cash to say in business. Plus, an Argentine winery may have stolen an artist’s work and more woes for legal weed

• So long, wine collection: Nation’s Restaurant News calls them “great wine cellar sell-offs of 2020.” High-end restaurants, which often spend years putting together award-winning wine lists, are selling their wines to stay in business during the pandemic. One New Jersey chain sold as much as 40 percent of its wine; a New York City restaurant turned its wine into $50,000 when it was closed in March and April. Said the restaurant’s wine director: “For us, if it’s between saving the cellar or the restaurant, save the restaurant. Product can be replaced, but you can’t replace the loyal staff members who have been with you for 10 years. A well-stocked wine cellar is of minimal value without the staff who sells it.” Restaurant wine pricing has come in for a lot of criticism on the blog over the years, but no one likes to see this going on.

• Give me back my art: An Argentine winery has allegedly stolen a drawing from a well-known U.S. artist, using the art work to decorate its box wine. ArtNet.com (bet you never thought you’d see that link on a wine site) reports that Shantell Martin says Bodegas San Huberto lifted the label for the company’s Aminga Malbec from drawings she made for a work she created for a 2017 show at the Albright-Knox Art Gallery in Buffalo. There’s a picture of the box and the drawing at the link, and they do look quite similar. The story also says Martin’s work appears to be ripped off regularly, and once by retailer Lane Bryant.

• More losses for legal weed: One of Canada’s biggest legal weed companies says it lost C$3.3 billion (about US$2.47 billion) in its 2020 fiscal year. Aurora Cannabis saw net revenue fall by some 30 percent and the company laid off thousands. In other words, more bad news for legal weed. And I’m not the only one who feels that way – the comments to the story, posted on the CBC website, wonder how it’s possible to lose billions of dollars selling marijuana. That’s a fair question, eh?