It’s a matter of some regret that the biggest news in Victorian wine of late concerns a legal matter which, in my humble opinion, should never have had to be resolved in a court of law. Ever since Jeffrey Sher QC, proprietor of Port Phillip Estate, filed a writ against Donlevy Fitzpatrick of Clyde Park and various companies associated with the production and marketing of Clyde Park wines, I can’t help the feeling that the industry should have developed its own way to solve this sort of problem in-house. Sher’s allegation was that Fitzpatrick had wrongfully produced and sold wine under the brand name of Port Phillip Chardonnay, suggesting that such an action equated to passing off Clyde Park wines as Port Phillip Estate. The writ cites the way the words were presented on the wine’s label and also the fashion in which bottles were advertised on a chalkboard at The Dog’s Bar in Melbourne, as ‘Port Phillip Chardonnay’. It was presented that a customer at The Dog’s Bar requested a glass of Port Phillip Estate Chardonnay and was subsequently served the wine from Clyde Park presented this way. Irrespective of the final outcome of this matter, which at time of writing is apparently close to settlement, it’s a concern to me that a grey area clearly exists between the use of a name as a wine brand and as a defined regional name as determined by the Geographical Indications Committee. Sher has made and bottled wines under the Port Phillip Estate label since 1988. Yet ‘Port Phillip’, like the Barossa Valley, has been determined as a geographical indication for Australian wine by the GIC. Irregardless of how much of a reputation Port Phillip Estate has or has not acquired since 1988, surely this would effectively mean that the words ‘Port Phillip’ should be freely allowed to appear on the labels of wine whose fruit was sourced from within its defined boundaries without fear of litigation? As the labels presented below indicate, there’s a huge difference between the two and Fitzpatrick has undertaken every imaginable effort to ensure that the regional origins of his wine are obvious to all. Not only is Fitzpatrick one of the most passionate supporters of the concept of regional integrity I have ever struck, but his defence asks the question of why he might want to pass off his wine as Port Phillip Estate’s. As far as I am aware, Clyde Park has been associated with fine chardonnay and pinot noir for longer than Port Phillip Estate. I was first impressed with its 1982 vintage. These days it’s common in bars and restaurants to order wines on the basis that they might be a ‘Clare Riesling 1997’, a ‘Barossa Shiraz 1996’, or a ‘Hunter Semillon 1991’. So why shouldn’t a producer use the term ‘Port Phillip Chardonnay 1996’ in the same way? Could a company like Barossa Valley Estates take an action to prevent the use of the term ‘Barossa’ in this way, on the basis that every wine so presented was passing itself off as one of theirs? Not likely. Surely it’s time the GIC was given the teeth to take care of these matters before they get to the courts.
