policy

August 28, 2009 was a bad day for Rum Jumbie. In a slew of “approvals,” TTB directed Varela Imports to make “rum” much, much, less conspicuous. TTB said:

When new labels are printed, the word “rum” in your trademark name Rum Jumbie cannot appear more prominent than the Class and type. The [statement of composition] and the words Rum Jumbie must appear in the same color print. … No more use-ups will be granted.

That is, Varela must make their brand name and trademark much less conspicuous because this is not “rum” and the actual designation is “Rum with Natural Flavors.” TTB’s point, essentially, is that Varela is putting far too much rum in the Jumbie. This label emphasizes the rum aspect at least four times. Jumbie has a trademark, and seems to have argued it here, to not much avail. There is little if any chance that the Trademark Office will come to the rescue and persuade TTB that there is not too much rum in the Jumbie. Also, the above image makes it pretty obvious that the product contains flavor. It is not clear whether Varela has smashed into an aberration, or an evolving policy. On one hand “rum” is quite prominent and it’s not “rum.” On the other hand,

This looks like a straightforward label, but it raises some good issues. “Napa” is on the “brand (front)” label. Should it be? On the one hand, it looks to be bottled in the Napa Valley. On the other hand, the appellation is California more broadly, as per box 14 of the label approval. The label mentions Napa three times, attesting to its obvious importance as a signal of quality. Each reference to Napa tends to be accompanied by a clarifying explanation. One says it’s bottled there, two say the brand’s ownership is there. None of them (explicitly or by omission) suggest the grapes were grown there. TTB has approved quite a few labels presenting the same issues, and they may show a shift in policy, compared to five or ten years ago. It is our understanding that some wineries were blocked from highlighting Napa, regardless of the location of the bottling winery, if the grapes were from elsewhere. The same label raises one more good (but rather technical) issue. The brand name and alcohol content statement are on one piece of paper. The varietal and appellation are on another. The rules require all four items to be on the brand label. Sometimes, TTB requires all four items on the same piece of paper, sometimes in the...

In many areas, TTB is fairly literal-minded. For example, if you are bound and determined to mention energy on your label, you are unlikely to get very far, without much regard to context, as in this example. Likewise, good luck if you want to use the term “organic” on anything not in line with the organic rules. In other areas, though, TTB will view a term much less literally. Mother’s Milk Shiraz is one such example. As best I can tell, it contains no milk. There is a recognition that the term is not to be taken seriously, even though it is quite possible to make a wide variety of alcohol beverages with and from real milk. This vodka distilled from milk is but one example. If you gave up Mother’s Milk before third grade, you may prefer Dragon’s Milk. Another alternative is Devil’s Milk. Even without ingredient labeling I am reasonably sure that the Devil contributed no milk whatsoever to DuClaw’s ale.