In the last post we discussed Braille wine labels. Today, Morse Code, as on this Australian wine label.
Morse Code was invented in the 1840s and is an early form of the digital encoding so widespread today. As with many of the Braille labels, the Morse Code label here does not seem to explain the message embedded in the code. Does TTB require it? Should TTB require it? Finally, who can decode this? For the energetic, there is a decoder here.
Search Results for: ttb
Braille Wine Labels
Above is an example of a wine label embossed with Braille. Such labels were virtually unavailable before about 13 years ago. Then, in 1996, M. Chapoutier of France begain using Braille on all its labels. The British newspaper, The Independent explains:
The technique is the same as printing visible labels: an iron Braille negative is pressed onto the back of the paper label to make the Braille bumps. Mr. Chapoutier decided to use his 40-year-old printing machine to make every one of the 2.5 million bottles of wine he produces each year. They have proved a success … . As fewer than 20,000 of the one million registered blind and partially sighted people in the UK can read Braille, other methods are also being urged including the use of audio-tapes, large print and computer disks.
The article explains that bleach and eye drops are the only other UK products imprinted with Braille.
It would seem that the Braille text should be covered on the TTB label approval, just like English letters, or any other language such as Japanese. And yet we have flipped through quite a few label approvals with Braille and very few mention Braille on the label approval.
Too Much Rum in the Jumbie
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, back in 2004, a similar label was good enough under similar rules for the prior importer. Beyond that, spiced rum is in the same category (rum specialties) and it is common on such labels to emphasize the rum.
Puzzle Time Wines
As lawyers, we would never condone playing games on wine labels. But here are two examples where TTB was okay with it.
On the left, Puzzle Time wine has a word search game.
On the right, the Fetzer label features a “rebus.” That’s right, a rebus. The approval describes a rebus as “a kind of word puzzle that uses pictures to represent words or parts of words.” Can you read the rebus on this label? I don’t want to spoil the fun here, but the answer can be found on the label approval.
Wine Without Sulfites
TTB classifies sake as a wine, for label purposes. Most wines have sulfites — but sake appears to be a notable exception. On the Shiga Sake label above, Village Wine reports that “Sakes do not contain sulfites.” TTB does not seem to disagree and has approved many such labels.
Another sake importer, Vine Connections, concurs and reports that “Premium sake is gluten-free, sulfite free, and kosher.”
What is Eau de Vie?
Every now and then, TTB approves another eau de vie. This leads to wondering if it’s the same as brandy. At long last, Tim Patterson has explained how they differ:
Unlike grape brandy, eau de vie puts the emphasis on freshness, liveliness, and capturing the intense essence of fruit — rather than on depth, weight, and the complexity that comes from years of interaction between spirit, oxygen and wood.
By way of example, here is Peak Spirits Peach Eau de Vie. And here is Clear Creek Plum Eau de Vie. Patterson explains further:
In the market for distilled spirits, dominated by slick, multi-million-dollar ad campaigns for super-premium vodkas and single malts, eau de vie is nearly invisible. If there’s something smaller than a niche market, eau de vie has it sewn up.
Yet for those who seek it out, and are persistent enough to find it, great eau de vie can be an exquisite experience.
The name translates as “water of life,” a reminder that the invention of distillation in the 17th century came in pursuit of cures for plagues like cholera.
Put another way, eau de vie is the anti-vodka. The point of vodka distillation is to remove all those annoying flavors; the point of eau de vie is to preserve as much of the original fruit as possible.
The economics of production provide an equally stark contrast. [Vodka] can be made from almost any source … for a cost of less than fifty cents a bottle. A quality eau de vie consumes about 30 pounds of first-rate fruit, picked at the moment of peak ripeness.
I have quoted extensively from Patterson’s excellent article, and still it contains much other compelling information, such as the fact that both of the leading producers of American eau de vie happen to be lawyers. TTB does not seem to recognize eau de vie as a distinct category; the above examples are classified as brandy and have the term “brandy” on the label alongside “eau de vie.”
