Wine Not Wine & Trademarks: Champère, How Fanciful!
The world of trademarks is filled with distinctive brand names, logos, and slogans. The world of wine is no different. Brand owners are often rewarded in the marketplace and in the courtroom when creating and adopting distinctive trademarks. This is especially true when it comes to “fanciful” trademarks—marks that are entirely invented or coined for the sole purpose of functioning as a trademark. The name Champère is a great example of a fanciful trademark.
Before proceeding, it may help to review the origin of Champère. If you are reaching for your French dictionary, do not bother. You will not find Champère there. At least, it is not in my copy. Fans of the Netflix series, Emily in Paris, might recall Emily’s visit to Camille’s family estate in Champagne. See Season 2 Episode 8, “Champagne Problems.” Emily, a marketing professional, helps Camille’s family with their champagne business. I will refrain from spoiling but Emily coins the term Champère for a new line of sparkling wine. It was inspired, in part, by Camille’s father—en français, son père.
Understanding Trademark Categories
Trademarks are categorized by their strength, which includes conceptual strength, as well as strength in the marketplace. This post focuses on conceptual strength, which consists of five categories of generally increasing distinctiveness: (1) generic, (2) descriptive, (3) suggestive, (4) arbitrary, or (5) fanciful. Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 768 (1992). “The latter three categories of marks, because their intrinsic nature serves to identify a particular source of a product, are deemed inherently distinctive and are entitled to protection.” Id.
A generic term refers to the class of which a good is a member (i.e., the name “Wine” used to identify wine). Id. Generic terms do not operate as source-identifiers. A descriptive term provides an attribute or quality of a good (i.e., the name “Candy Wine” that describes its candy taste). Id. at 769. Generic terms receive no trademark protection, while descriptive terms merit protection only if they have acquired secondary meaning. Id. Secondary meaning occurs when the mark becomes associated with a single commercial source in the minds of consumers.
More distinctiveness and less natural or literal content correspond with increased mark strength. See Exxon Corp. v. Tex. Motor Exch. of Houston, Inc., 628 F.2d 500, 504 (5th Cir. 1980). A suggestive term suggests but does not describe an attribute of the good; it requires the consumer to exercise her imagination to apply the trademark to the good. Zatarains, Inc. v. Oak Grove Smokehouse, Inc., 698 F.2d 786, 791 (5th Cir. 1983).
Arbitrary marks are common words or images used in a context that is unrelated to their normal meaning, rendering them distinctive to a particular product or service. Arbitrary marks consist of existing words or symbols applied in a way that does not logically connect to the product they represent. A classic example is “Apple” for computers and electronics; while “apple” is a common word referring to a fruit, its use in the context of technology is unexpected and unrelated, making it arbitrary as a trademark.
Fanciful marks are trademarks that are entirely invented or “coined” for the sole purpose of functioning as a trademark. This category of marks consists of words or logos that have no intrinsic or dictionary meaning before their adoption as trademarks. Examples include made-up words like “Kodak” for photographic products. The key characteristic of fanciful marks is that they are inherently distinctive and unique, offering a high level of brand protection. Due to their distinctive nature, fanciful marks are generally afforded the strongest level of trademark protection.
Champère is a coined term and, therefore, classified as a fanciful trademark. As a result, it is inherently distinctive and entitled to the highest level of trademark protection.
Marketing Advantages:
As a fanciful mark, Champère offers marketing benefits unavailable to more descriptive marks. Its distinctiveness makes it memorable, aiding in brand recall and customer loyalty. It also allows for creative branding opportunities, as the name can be imbued with whatever brand story or image the company chooses to craft. With a name like CANDY WINE, the name might bind the winery to a particular story. Champère, by contrast, affords more opportunity.
As mentioned above, Champère is the name of a fictitious product from the series Emily in Paris. The product was intended to serve as a low-cost party wine that people could spray during celebratory events (e.g., World Cup victories, F1 podium celebrations, the club). Emily and her team adopted a corresponding tagline: “Spray It, Don’t Say It.” That tagline supports the story. That story would make less sense with names like LEATHER WINE or ROYAL WINE.
Emily’s story has been sufficiently effective that the Boisset Collection adopted it and sells CHAMPÈRE sparkling wine and uses the Spray It Don’t Say It tagline.
Conclusion:
Champère is a great example of a fanciful trademark, demonstrating the power of creativity in brand naming. By deviating from descriptive or suggestive names, fanciful trademarks like Champère offer strong legal protection and open doors for distinctive branding strategies. They remind us that in the realm of trademarks, sometimes the best choice is to be creative.
If you would like to discuss your wine business’s trademark—whether fanciful or otherwise—with an experienced trademark attorney, schedule a consultation here.
