Battle lines are being drawn over the right to use the Koppamurra name, adopted by Koppamurra Vineyards Pty Ltd since 1975 and owned as their trademark since 1992. The Koppamurra Grape Growers Association, whose members include BRL Hardy, Mildara Blass Ltd & S Smith & Son and, surprisingly, Koppamurra Vineyards itself, has initiated a florid and emotional publicity campaign to persuade interested parties that Koppamurra is a long-established regional name and that its use should not be restricted to a single proprietor. But Koppamurra Vineyards is standing its ground. ‘Hands off our name!’ declares Hamish Ramsey, who while acknowledging that ‘Koppamurra’ was indeed the name of a local grazing property and telephone exchange, disagrees that the region in question has always been known by that name. His company also disputes the association’s assertion that Koppamurra boasts an international reputation for its small seed, meat and horticultural exports. Ramsey’s concern is that the association has dropped hints that some form of legal challenge may be in the air, which his company says it will fight to the last. He quotes present legislation, saying it requires the owner of a trademark to defend its distinctiveness or face the chance it might be found by a court to be sufficiently deceptive or confusing to warrant its expungement. For the time being, Ramsey believes the Geographical Indications Committee will not permit the use of pre-existing trademarked names as regional names without their owner’s consent. If the Koppamurra name has always been so important to the district and its producers, why back in 1992 did the parties who now claim its use as a wine-producing region not sufficiently object to the granting of Koppamurra Vineyards’ trademark? If their case is so solid, how did they let it slip by? Surely the companies which began in 1993 to plant the area’s present 950 ha would have known by then that they wanted to use Koppamurra’s name for the region? It would be a travesty for this issue to become a matter of which side has most in the fighting fund, which would surely minimise the chances of a rational settlement.
