What’s in a name?

The integrity of an industry, the fortunes of a few small companies, and the guiding hand of the federal government are all involved in a battle over what the word “Calistoga” means on a wine bottle.

Here’s how the battle of Calistoga came to pass.

Ten years ago, an Upvalley resident named Roger Louer started a winery called Calistoga Cellars. Some of his grapes come from Calistoga, some from St. Helena, Pope Valley and Carneros. He got federal approval for his labels, and now his 10,000-case-a-year business distributes wine in 40 states.

Then a few years ago, the federal government approved the name Calistoga Estates for a winery based in Silver Spring, Md. Around that time, vintners in Calistoga began a movement to create a federally-recognized viticultural area, or appellation, in Calistoga. It would be the 14th so-called “sub-app” in Napa County; others include Carneros, Stags Leap and Rutherford. Certainly, if these areas qualify as areas with distinct grapegrowing conditions and traditions, Calistoga does as well.

Yet the effort to create a Calistoga appellation got bogged down before the federal Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, or TTB. The problem: If the appellation was granted, then Calistoga Cellars and Calistoga Estates could no longer to do business under their established names.

The solution TTB proposed in the fall was to grandfather in Calistoga Cellars, because it has been doing business for years; knock out Calistoga Estates, because it got its name around the time of the Calistoga appellation movement; and grant true Calistoga vintners their appellation.

This compromise caused alarm Upvalley, and TTB extended the comment period on its proposed rule. Recently, the Register editorial board met with several people involved in the dispute. On one side were Calistoga Cellars’ Louer, his marketing and sales director Mitch Boyd, and national marketing associate Hayden Guridi from Regency Wine Group.

On the other side were Linda Reiff, executive director of the 300-winery Napa Valley Vintners, and NVV President Pat Stotesbery

 The board also received letters stating the views of those with ties to Calistoga Estates in Maryland.

The representatives of the Napa Valley Vintners argued that the TTB compromise is a mistake. The Vintners fought hard to keep wine mogul Fred Franzia from putting Napa names on bottles filled with Central Valley grapes, getting a law passed in Sacramento and seeing the challenge to that law upheld by the state and federal courts. With the TTB proposal, they saw the reputation of the industry being undermined again.

“This comes right down to the credibility of the products of Calistoga,” said Reiff. “Consumer deception is something we are very concerned about.”

Louer and his associates argued they had invested millions of dollars in the Calistoga Cellars name. They have a tasting room in downtown Calistoga, roughly half their grapes come from Calistoga and all their grapes come from Napa County. They said the TTB’s proposed rule, which grandfathers them in, is fair.

“We want to survive,” said Boyd. “We want to maintain the business we established with 10 years of hard work.”

So, should wine producers, especially those that stake their efforts on the excellent growing conditions and winemaking knowledge in the Napa Valley, see the name Calistoga diluted? Should business owners whose labels have been blessed by the feds be forced give up a brand with value?

TTB tried to accommodate both with its proposed rule. In our view, TTB erred.

If the Calistoga designation is to have any meaning, the grapes must come from that area. Truth in labeling puts the consumer first, is consistent with hard-fought protections for the Napa Valley wine industry, and supports a growing trend to offer consumers reliable information about the origins of products.

Rather than grandfather Calistoga Cellers in and Calistoga Estates out, the TTB should set a time period — between three and five years — for these companies to create new brands for their products. This will minimize the economic harm to these companies while supporting truth in labeling. (It is worth noting that no one disputes that those Calistoga Cellars wines made from Calistoga grapes may continue to be bottled under the Calistoga Cellars name.)

Federal regulators have given mixed signals in the past, which is how we got into this predicament. Giving more mixed signals is not the solution.

The TTB should allow these two businesses the time to replace their brands, approve the Calistoga AVA and fully support the principle of truth in labeling.