Geographic Indications in Wine and Spirits: Legal Protections, Precedent, and Emerging Trends in U.S. Markets

In the highly competitive global alcohol market, geographic origin functions not only as a marker of provenance but as a legally enforceable brand identity. For wine, spirits, and other alcohol products, Geographic Indications (GIs) and Appellations of Origin have become increasingly significant for producers, regulators, and consumers. This article explores the current legal framework surrounding GIs in the U.S., relevant case law, and trends that point to a growing emphasis on regional identity, including in New York’s evolving wine landscape.

Geographic Indications and the U.S. Legal Framework

Geographic Indications (GIs) are defined by the World Trade Organization's TRIPS Agreement (Art. 22) as indications that identify a good as originating in a territory where a given quality, reputation, or characteristic is essentially attributable to its geographic origin.

In the United States, however, GIs are not treated as a standalone form of intellectual property. Instead, protection arises through:

• Trademark law (particularly certification marks),

• State labeling regulations, and

• Federal approval via the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) for wine appellations of origin.

  
  

Under 27 CFR § 4.25, wine labels must use appellations of origin consistent with TTB-recognized viticultural areas (AVAs). These appellations must meet requirements for grape sourcing and production location.

Case Law and Enforcement of Geographic Indicators

While GI enforcement in the U.S. is limited compared to the EU, there have been critical cases shaping this legal space:

Institut National des Appellations d’Origine v. Brown-Forman Corp., 47 USPQ2d 1875 (TTAB 1998)

The French agency overseeing the “Champagne” appellation challenged Brown-Forman’s use of “Champale” for a malt beverage. The TTAB upheld the use, finding no likelihood of confusion, but the case highlighted the difficulties in protecting foreign GIs under U.S. trademark law without a certification mark or treaty.

Scotch Whisky Ass’n v. Majestic Distilling Co., Inc., 958 F.2d 594 (4th Cir. 1992)

The court enjoined a Maryland company from marketing its product as "Scotch" because it was not produced in Scotland. The court held that the term “Scotch” had secondary meaning and its misuse constituted false advertising under the Lanham Act, providing a blueprint for GI protection via unfair competition doctrines.

Napa Valley Vintners v. Napa Wine Co., 46 Cal. Rptr. 3d 563 (2006)

This California case affirmed that misleading geographic labeling (using “Napa” when grapes were not sourced from Napa) violates California’s Wine Truth in Labeling Act. This case is important as a state-level enforcement of GI-style protections through statutory mechanisms.

GI Protection in Spirits and Emerging Categories

Although more limited than in wine, GI-style protections are becoming more prominent in spirits:

• Tequila and Mezcal are protected by bilateral agreements between the U.S. and Mexico. Only products produced in designated Mexican regions under NOM regulations may be labeled as such.

• Scotch whisky and Irish whiskey enjoy protection through international treaties and TTB enforcement (27 CFR § 5.22).

• Tennessee Whiskey has de facto GI protection through state law and federal definitions.

What remains lacking is a comprehensive U.S. registry of geographic indicators beyond the AVA system in wine.

The Future of GI Protections: Opportunities in New York

New York State is home to several federally recognized American Viticultural Areas (AVAs) including:

• Finger Lakes AVA

• North Fork of Long Island AVA

• Hudson River Region AVA

• Niagara Escarpment AVA

  
  

As these regions build reputations for Riesling, Cabernet Franc, and sparkling wine, producers may increasingly turn to GI protections as a form of regional branding. Some may adopt certification marks for regional identity (e.g., “Long Island Sustainable Wine”), especially as direct-to-consumer shipping and online wine sales grow.

New York’s wine industry could benefit from:

• State-level labeling laws similar to California’s Truth in Labeling Act.

• Encouraging producer coalitions to create certification marks for quality and origin.

• Advocacy for federal recognition of newer AVAs or sub-AVAs as a branding strategy.

  
  

Key Takeaways for Beverage Industry Stakeholders

1. Appellation of origin and geographic indication protection is increasing in importance, not only for international trade but for domestic marketing and brand value.

2. U.S. businesses should avoid using semi-generic names (e.g., Champagne, Port, Sherry) unless grandfathered under the U.S.-EU Wine Agreement of 2006.

3. Emerging regions, including in New York, have an opportunity to proactively develop legal frameworks and industry standards that protect their identity.

4. Certification marks and trademark strategies offer the most direct path for U.S. producers to enforce GI rights.

As consumer interest in provenance, sustainability, and craft continues to rise, legal protection of geographic identity is becoming as crucial as the terroir itself. Wine and spirit producers—and the attorneys who advise them—must stay alert to developments in this space, especially as U.S. courts, federal regulators, and international trade partners continue to shape the landscape.