Primary Contacts

Michael Brill Newman
Partner
San Francisco

Michael B. Newman is a Partner and heads the firm’s Alcohol Beverage Team, focusing on counseling industry clients on national and international regulatory, contract, legislative, and...

View Full Profile

Michael Brill Newman
Partner
San Francisco

Michael B. Newman is a Partner and heads the firm’s Alcohol Beverage Team, focusing on counseling industry clients on national and international regulatory, contract, legislative, and...

View Full Profile

Michael Brill Newman
Partner
San Francisco

Michael B. Newman is a Partner and heads the firm’s Alcohol Beverage Team, focusing on counseling industry clients on national and international regulatory, contract, legislative, and...

View Full Profile

Michael Brill Newman
Partner
San Francisco

Michael B. Newman is a Partner and heads the firm’s Alcohol Beverage Team, focusing on counseling industry clients on national and international regulatory, contract, legislative, and...

View Full Profile

Michael Brill Newman
Partner
San Francisco

Michael B. Newman is a Partner and heads the firm’s Alcohol Beverage Team, focusing on counseling industry clients on national and international regulatory, contract, legislative, and...

View Full Profile

Michael Brill Newman
Partner
San Francisco

Michael B. Newman is a Partner and heads the firm’s Alcohol Beverage Team, focusing on counseling industry clients on national and international regulatory, contract, legislative, and...

View Full Profile

Michael Brill Newman
Partner
San Francisco

Michael B. Newman is a Partner and heads the firm’s Alcohol Beverage Team, focusing on counseling industry clients on national and international regulatory, contract, legislative, and...

View Full Profile

  • Printer friendly
  • Email this page to a friend
  • Generate a PDF version of this page

Articles & White Papers
Alcohol Beverage

Bronco "Napa" Label Case Raises Significant Legal Issues
 
July 9, 2004
 
Michael Brill Newman - San Francisco

Since the early 1990’s, Bronco Winery has sold several wines with geographic brand names such as Napa Ridge, Napa Creek, and Rutherford Vineyards. The only catch ─ very little of the wine was actually from the Napa or Rutherford region. But, based on “grandfathered” labels, Bronco’s labels were lawful under federal and California law.

In response to Bronco’s use of these brand names, the Napa Valley Vintners Association (“NVVA”) lobbied the California legislature in 2000 to enact B&P Code §25241, which requires that wines bearing a brand name including Napa, or a viticultural area appellation within Napa County, be made entirely from Napa grapes. Bronco successfully challenged §25241 in the Court of Appeal, asserting federal law preempted the statute.

Under regulations adopted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms pursuant to federal law, any wine bearing the name of a viticultural area must be made from grapes of which at least 85 percent are from the area. However, names such as the brands Bronco sells are protected by a “grandfather clause.” If a brand includes a viticultural area in the name, and the brand name was in use prior to 1986, under certain conditions, the wine need not contain any grapes from the named area.

Both the NVVA, as an “intervener,” and the Attorney General, petitioned the California Supreme Court for review and the various parties argued their positions before the court on May 24, 2004. The NVVA asserts that federal and state regulation of alcohol beverages has coexisted for nearly a century and that although the federal grandfather clause excuses noncompliance with regulations, it does not prevent a state from taking remedial action when it believes deception of consumers will result. Bronco continues to argue “pre-emption.”

The court has until August 23, 2004 to render a decision. No matter which side prevails, given the economics of the use of “Napa” on a wine label, the loser will likely appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. whatever the result, final resolution of this case will establish a significant precedent for future guidance when issues arise from overlapping federal and state alcohol beverage laws.