Here is Bacmar’s use-up approval for Voyant Liqueur. It almost single-handedly proves it is not a good idea to print labels prior to TTB label approval. It looks painful and seems to have consumed a good part of Mr. Back’s spring and summer, from the April 2009 date of application until approval in July of the same year. The approval in all its fullness and glory, is here.
In decades past, it was relatively easy to get “use-ups” (aka temporary approvals). But it seems to be getting harder and harder. In the 1990s it was a simple matter of asking, face to face. Now it can easily take more time, money and resources than the forlorn product is worth. The Voyant approval probably shows how hard it can be. On the other extreme, this Skyy approval tends to show how quickly it can go, and then Jumbie is somewhere in the middle.
TTB’s main use-up policy is here. We like to think we’ve helped many companies avoid a Back-breaking struggle with TTB. In some situations, though, it can be difficult to avoid.
I received many calls regarding this blog and had Lehrman done their due diligence and some “back” breaking work, they may have realized that we DID NOT decorate bottles prior to importing into the US and that was not the reason we sought and obtained a “use up” approval. We placed labels over our Canadian bottles which were decorated according to the laws of Canada, not the US. Regardless, I appreciate you bringing attention to our product; however, please inform your legal team next time to do some research before they incorrectly write up an article on a companies work. As a legal company, it does not do good to advertise your lack of work in researching items you are writing about. To incorrectly make such statements as you did about our use-up application must generate more questions about your research team then it does about our application. I would hope that in the future, you will use better judgement.
Well then it’s a good thing we did not get into guessing about what, when and where you decorated. If it’s wrong please clarify so we can correct.
Please look at the link to the use up application you referenced. Had you done your due diligence and actually read the use up approval, you would have noted in section 19 that we referenced CANADA and that the approval was for only 600 cases. Section 19 clearly notes that we were applying labels over the ingredient statement (which is required in Canada) and that the affixed labels would make the bottles (which are painted) acceptable as per TTB regulations.
You did not guess, but you clearly implied that we painted bottles in advance of getting TTB approval and that was clearly not the case here and the use up approval clearly vindicates us and raises question about your due diligence in regard to posting comments on your blog and my friends in the industry got a good “laugh” out of this.
We merely ask that in the future, for all companies involved, that you do the “back” breaking work required to make sure your comments – which at times (like in this instance) can be insulting and wrong – are accurate and reliable. Incorrect blogging can do more harm to the blogger than the company being blogged about. As I have worked closely with the TTB for almost 20 years, I did not appreciate the inaccurate comments and when told of them by some of my friends in the industry, I felt I needed to comment on them. Please understand, that not all companies seek use up approval because they rushed label printing.
Thanks
OK. Our point is that it can be hard to get a use-up, not a whole lot more. I don’t really see much here to suggest otherwise.