Comments on: Before the courts: Cristal ($299) defeats Cristalino ($5.99)

By: lester wheeler

lester wheeler — Sun, 15 May 2011 06:19:21 +0000

Check the back of the shelf if you preffer the gold label cristalino. There are still many gold labeled bottles available

By: Dr. Vino

Dr. Vino — Mon, 10 Jan 2011 02:08:45 +0000

Suave- Do you have a picture of the new label?

By: Suave ignon Blanc

Suave ignon Blanc — Sun, 09 Jan 2011 19:07:41 +0000

Honestly, I think the entire legal battle wasn’t much more than a waste of money and a show of power. Sure, the average consumer might have thought Cristalino was a cheaper version of Cristal, but would that average consumer actually purchase a 300$ bottle of Cristal over a 6$ bottle of Cristalino if they knew the difference, emphatically NO! The type of consumer that purchases fine Champagne is NOT “average”, by most peoples definition. I’m very dissapointed with the new labels, they look like crap. I hope Cristalino doesn’t loose any business as a result, I was never worried for Roederer.

By: Anatoli Levine

Anatoli Levine — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 18:21:27 +0000

Very interesting, thanks for sharing. I would never associate the two… It reminds me of Duckhorn versus Duckwalk and Cote Rotie versus Goats du Roam , both cases kind of left in limbo.
And personally, at that price level I would definitely prefer Krug over Cristal…

By: Erol Senel

Erol Senel — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 19:15:25 +0000

About 3-4 months ago I was tableside for a couple’s anniversary and we were discussing terrific Champagnes to start off their evening.

We were going back and forth between Cristal and Veuve La Grande Dame, when the female guest finally said to her husband “I don’t like Cristalino why would I like Cristal.” At that point I recommended the Dom.

Good for Cristal as there are plenty of people who will make this mistake. Remember, only rappers, Bravo’s Real Housewives and wine geeks know about Cris(tal that is).

By: David Strange

David Strange — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 17:30:20 +0000

Those Champagne lawyers will leap on anything that even has a suggestion of purloining their terribly expens… I mean ‘good’ name. This really was a bit of terribly silly minnow chasing by Roederer; as the article points out who is seriously going to confuse the two?

I really fancy a glass of fizz right now, come to think of it.

By: Christine

Christine — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 11:02:43 +0000

The trial judge did toss the case a couple of years ago when she first heard it, but the appeals court ruled she had abused her discretion and sent it back for trial. Roederer really didn’t have much choice but to pursue this. If they let it go, they stand a greater chance of losing their trademark protection in the future. There are lots of examples where that has happened.

By: Wine and Spirits

Wine and Spirits — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 09:37:05 +0000

[...] bar – Beer From a Good Home A Refined Chardonnay in Coastal Sonoma – New York Times Cristal ($299) Defeats Cristalino ($5.99) – Dr. Vino Celebrating Carmenere – The Washington [...]

By: Frederick C. Zerke

Frederick C. Zerke — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 03:14:23 +0000

Roederer takes a legal sledge hammer to a fly. If the judge had any palate-which should have been a prerequisite for her to hear this case-she would have dismissed this suit out of hand! Good to see our judiciary is concerning themselves with the truly salient matters of the moment. From this day onward I will assiduously avoid all Roderer wines. Hell, I like a cheap Spanish sparkler!

By: Craig

Craig — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 03:04:46 +0000

A few years ago, there was a very successful “men’s club” here that was the largest customer in the state for both Cristal and Cristalino. Their going rate for Cristal was $600 which is not unheard of, but their price for the Cristalino, $100, was ridiculous. It was being sold, very successfully, as a less expensive Cristal alternative.

By: Will H

Will H — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 02:24:19 +0000

Frankly though not confused, “knock-off” is the first thing to cross my mind when I first saw Cristalino cava 5 or 6 years ago. “-ino” being diminutive, they’re trying to gain some association with the luxury brand.

Aren’t prosecco wines with yellow/orange labels typically trying to bank off of Veuve’s brand recognition?

By: RobinC

RobinC — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 23:01:21 +0000

Perhaps Cristal is’t doing as well as they would like and they thought that the publicity might generate a multitude of taste tests. That would be a fun blind tasting.

By: Christine

Christine — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 21:21:00 +0000

The ruling just applies to distribution in the U.S. As Laurie points out, companies have to be vigilant in protecting their trademark; otherwise, they can lose it.

By: David T (@ONUMello)

David T (@ONUMello) — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 20:57:09 +0000

Honestly I never saw any comparison until reading this article. While Cristal does appear to be the older brand, Cristalino has been around over 20 years as well. Why is this just now an issue? I find it hard to buy there would be any confusion on at least three grounds:

1. They look nothing alike. One is in a clear bottle wrapped in plastic, the other is in a green bottle.
2. One glance at the label would show you one’s from Spain, the other France. Why should the US courts care what brands exist in other countries, or be able to prohibit a foreign company from having a similar name to a different foreign company from a different country? I’m missing the jurisdiction here.
3. Price

By: Laurie

Laurie — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 20:48:26 +0000

In all seriousness, under federal trademark law, it behooves a company to be vigilant against even the appearance of infringement. If a company becomes lax in the policing of their trademark interests,they risk damaging the value of their trademark.

Even if it is unlikely that a consumer will be confused between the two products, Roederer must be diligent in protecting the name Cristal or it could, overtime, become into a generic term for “prized bubbly”. Aspirin was once a trademarked product… and how many times do you use the term saran wrap when you are referring to any sticky, filmy product (like Glad wrap)?

As odd as it may seem, Roederer is merely protecting the value of their brand.