JustMeLurkingAround- t1_jb5s2z1 wrote
Understandable. It seems they are moving most of production from Switzerland to Eastern Europe. Which makes it not Swiss chocolate anymore.
The Matterhorn is an important Swiss landmark, which would still suggest it is Swiss made chocolate. They have to protect their brands and quality. If they allow everyone to seem like they are producing Swiss chocolate anywhere, it won't mean a thing anymore soon.
SilasX t1_jb6h3tt wrote
Reminds me of the time Brits were upset that some condiment's packaging still had Big Ben on it even after production moved to the Netherlands.
JustMeLurkingAround- t1_jb6kemz wrote
Yeah, but Swiss Chocolate is a protected term connected to a certain region. Just like Champagne (Champangne, France), Parmesan (Parma, Italy), Bourbon (USA), Cornish Pastries (UK) or Colombian Coffee.
You can't just plant a coffee tree with seeds from Colombia in your backyard and call it Colombian coffee or produce some whiskey in China and call it Bourbon. Same with Swiss chocolate. You can't produce it in Slovakia (with Slovakian rules and regulations) and call it Swiss.
There are lots of these protected designations around the world that vouch for a certain origin, quality, and often traditional production. And if the Swiss have protected the picture of the Matterhorn as a trademark, it goes for symbols just the same.
zdakat t1_jb7ec2i wrote
Drinking sparkling chocolate and playing on a Nintendo
SuDragon2k3 t1_jb8spz1 wrote
What if...Switzerland....*annexes...*this new production location?
ux3l t1_jb5u6ym wrote
What does it matter where something is made if it's made the same way. Sure, they can't claim it's swiss chocolate anymore, but the Matterhorn isn't Swiss made, and a part of it is in Italy.
blahbleh112233 t1_jb5vhyo wrote
Matters a lot for protecting income. I think bourbon is only allowed to be called that if it's made in the US for example, so thus all the bourbon money goes to the us
1ndomitablespirit t1_jb5y4ad wrote
I heard that only Champagne comes from France. Is that the same idea?
Inked-Sailor t1_jb5ypzq wrote
Yes, and how scotch can only come from Scotland.
Mayor__Defacto t1_jb5zt6i wrote
That one’s not true. Champagne can also come from California, legally. Part of negotiations over trade labeling ~18 years ago. Producers in California that were already labeling their product Champagne were/are allowed to continue to label it as such indefinitely.
tauntingbob t1_jb63kfv wrote
Perhaps only in America, Champagne is PDO in other countries.
Also Champagne is called that because it comes from the Champagne region of France, even if a sparkling wine is made in France it cannot be called Champagne if it doesn't come from the right region.
Pademelon1 t1_jb8do5e wrote
Nah they're right. When PDO over champagne first became a thing, there were already American wineries producing 'champagne', and they wouldn't agree to the PDO terms for many years. Finally, the PDO was negotiated that historic American champagne lines could continue to be produced, however, it has to mention 'California'.
Only a small number of these historic lines continue to be produced however, and almost entirely for the American market.
elizabeth-cooper OP t1_jb60jqs wrote
There's a difference between a word or phrase and a natural feature of the Earth.
blahbleh112233 t1_jb61xnk wrote
It's a similar idea. If you're going to invoke a country/cultural craft (here its swiss chocolate being high quality), then you should pay up. No free riders!
1eejit t1_jb6pupq wrote
Same principle as DOP
Tsiroch t1_jb696ah wrote
While you aren't wrong, I'm not sure bourbon was the best example?
A lot of brewing and distilling is affected by things like the features of the soil used to grow barley, hops, and the like.
I know the land changes the taste of Scotch, especially peated, so I assume the same for bourbon?
Apologies if I'm talkin' out my ass.
blahbleh112233 t1_jb6bv8v wrote
No, but there's also nothing stopping you for mimicking the same conditions, or just importing the goods. Like Napa Valley wine is quality because of the grapes. The barreling and fermentation can be done anywhere since its imported wood, fermented in a sterile environment.
There's probably a bit of a difference in the hops and such but you can make whiskey that tastes mighty close to bourbon. At the end of the day is a trademark thing that ensures income more than naything else.
Tsiroch t1_jb6indp wrote
Another fun (at least mostly true) fact!
There was a grape blight that started in 2008 that killed (IIRC) ~80% of California's grapes.
So, to recover, us here in Missouri gave'em a whole bunch of ours!
ux3l t1_jb60ffe wrote
Yes, that's why they won't write "Swiss made chocolate" on it. But the picture of a mountain can only be used on products made in the country where most of the mountain is in? That's going a bit too far I think. It's a mountain! Not a building or monument.
blahbleh112233 t1_jb61sh0 wrote
It is, but that's laws for you man. Swiss don't want no free riders, and you can argue Swiss Chocolate is a cultural brand in and of itself so the country has incentive to protect the integrity of it.
[deleted] t1_jbfhkf9 wrote
[deleted]
ux3l t1_jb658i2 wrote
Did you even read what I wrote in these 2 comments? A third time just for you: It's completely understandable that companies can't write "Swiss chocolate" on chocolate made somewhere else. But Switzerland shouldn't be able to forbid the usage of a picture that resembles a mountain that happens to be in their territory.
blahbleh112233 t1_jb65wq9 wrote
I read what you wrote, have you heard of the moron in a hurry benchmark? I.e. that not everyone will read the labels for stuff and will go buy off oflook/picture alone? It's an actual legal test.
But lets be real, all these things are just cynical ploys for more money. I'm sure the Swiss would totally be ok with Toblerone using that mountain outline if they came to a licensing arrangement or something.
BRIKHOUS t1_jb6vu86 wrote
Nah. I mean places can mean more what they are physically right? Like, you slap the grand canyon on something, you're not going to think it's from England.
ux3l t1_jb74h8c wrote
I know Grand Canyon is in the USA, but I don't associate both directly, so I wouldn't feel betrayed if something with a logo that looks like the Grand Canyon be made somewhere else than the US. I remember from my childhod chocolate filled cookies that looked like Koalas, and I doubt they were made in Australia.
BRIKHOUS t1_jb74z41 wrote
>so I wouldn't feel betrayed if something with a logo that looks like the Grand Canyon be made somewhere else than the US.
Fair, but not really the point. It's whether you'd think it's made in the US. If someone would think that, then it's misleading, and problematic.
>I remember from my childhod chocolate filled cookies that looked like Koalas, and I doubt they were made in Australia.
Ha, and that's because, to my knowledge, animals actually work the way you're suggesting for landmarks
ux3l t1_jb76204 wrote
> It's whether you'd think it's made in the US.
That was a No.
And Koalas makes me more think of Australia than the Grand Canyon of USA or the Matterhorn of Switzerland, rather the Alps in general.
BRIKHOUS t1_jb76os2 wrote
Are you from the US? A US person would likely think it was made in the US. Or a brit might think their beans are local if they gave a picture of the thames on the label.
Even if you personally wouldn't feel confused, can you see how a reasonable person might? That's the idea
Urgullibl t1_jbb7sjm wrote
I see what you did here.
dykeag t1_jb7jnte wrote
Kentucky, specifically
Vadered t1_jbd9qsp wrote
This is incorrect. You can make it in any US state and call it bourbon; you can only call it Kentucky bourbon if it’s from Kentucky.
Kelend t1_jb6d4pb wrote
>I think bourbon is only allowed to be called that if it's made in the US for example, so thus all the bourbon money goes to the us
Except US laws don't apply outside the US.
You can make all the Bourbon you want, and sell it outside the US all you want, and you could even call it Bourbon.
blahbleh112233 t1_jb6de1q wrote
You can in the third world for sure but this is something US actually puts into trade agreements and sues for in the WTO.
1eejit t1_jb6q7rn wrote
After all, if the US won't respect DOPs of others why would others respect theirs?
VALTIELENTINE t1_jb9qn1o wrote
But the us does indeed negotiate trade agreements with other countries. Those trade agreements include licensing and classification
1pencil t1_jb6fcq5 wrote
Because some Karen out there will sue for false advertising.
jointheredditarmy t1_jb6dttc wrote
As someone mentioned, it’s become something of a national trademark.
Xaero_Hour t1_jb6f82f wrote
Not that it's the case here, but there are foods that can only be made the same way if they're made in a particular location. Parmesan reggiano is like this; there's a bacteria used to make the cheese that's only found in one place so everything else is imitation parmesan. Then there's the whole Champaigne vs sparkling wine thing which is mostly branding IIRC.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments