Intellectual Property Insights from Fishman Stewart
Mini Article – Volume 23, Issue 16
Share on Social
Get Ready to Celebrate National Red Wine Day
By Kristyn Webb
National Red Wine Day is observed each year on August 28th. This year, to celebrate, we are sharing a fun story about wine, trademarks, and legal battle over the rights to use a family name on wine labels.
The business of making and selling red wine can be competitive. Many winemakers use a family name or surname, like Gallo, Mondavi, and Babich, to set themselves apart. Generally, under US law, trademarks formed by surnames are refused registration by the US Patent and Trademark Office on the Principal Register. So, how was Gallo, for example, able to obtain a registration? By claiming that “Gallo” acquired distinctiveness.
Acquired distinctiveness, also known as “secondary” meaning, refers to a legal concept that allows an otherwise unregistrable trademark to be registered if, through use and advertising, consumers come to recognize the mark as a trademark rather than associating the mark with its “primary” non-trademark meaning, in this case its meaning as a surname. To establish acquired distinctiveness, a trademark owner must provide evidence that its trademark has become associated exclusively with its products or services in the minds of consumers. Once a trademark has acquired distinctiveness, it can be registered and protected, allowing the owner exclusive rights to use the trademark in commerce and preventing others from using confusingly similar trademarks.
But when it comes to surnames used as trademarks, can one trademark owner prevent a person from using his or her own last name? The short answer is “yes, sometimes.”
In one famous lawsuit, the Taylor Wine Company sued to stop a competitor, Bully Hill Vineyards, from selling a line of wine branded under the trademark, “Walter S. Taylor.” The Taylor Wine Company was founded around 1880 by Walter Stephen Taylor at a place called Bully Hill in the Finger Lakes region of New York. Eventually, the Taylor Wine Company was moved from Bully Hill to another location and later sold to Coca Cola. The original vineyard located at Bully Hill was eventually sold too.
Then in 1958, Walter S. Taylor, the grandson of Walter Stephen Taylor, bought back the family vineyard at Bully Hill and in 1970 established Bully Hill Vineyards. Around 1977, Bully Hill Vineyards began making and selling wine under the label “Walter S. Taylor.” In response, the Taylor Wine Company sued to stop Bully Hill Vineyards from using the brand “Walter S. Taylor” claiming that consumers may be confused as to the source of the wine produced by Bully Hill Vineyards.
The court sided with the Taylor Wine Company and issued an injunction prohibiting Walter S. Taylor and Bully Hill Vineyards from using “Walter S. Taylor” as a trademark for wine. The court reasoned that the Taylor Wine Company was the senior user of the trademark and was well established as a winemaker in consumers’ minds. The court further noted that Walter S. Taylor had not inherited either the “Taylor” name as a trademark or the actual family vineyard. So, oddly, while Walter S. Taylor was a vintner, and came from a family of vintners, and was making and selling wine from his ancestral vineyard, he was not allowed to use his family name—his own name—on his wine labels. While he was able to buy back the family farm, he was not able to recover the family name.
But, in a nod to practicality and fairness, the court recognized that Walter S. Taylor may need to occasionally identify himself by name and occupation as a vintner. So, for example, he could use his own signature on wine labels and advertisements but had to include a disclaimer that he was not associated with the Taylor Wine Company. However, cleverly, Walter S. Taylor began selling “goat wine”—telling the media and consumers that, while Coca-Cola had gotten his name, they hadn’t “gotten his goat.”
The Taylor Wine Company (no longer owned by Coca-Cola) still manufactures and sells some dessert wines, but its status as a leading label has declined considerably since the 1970’s. Bully Hill Vineyards, on the other hand, is still open for tours and selling goat-themed wines and other merchandise.
Happy Red Wine Day. Cheers!
Kristyn Webb is the Group Leader of Fishman Stewart’s Copyright Practice Group, and is currently earning a Master’s Degree in Copyright Law at King’s College London.

Published August 25, 2023


Related Content from Fishman Stewart
Comerica Park becomes Fifth Third Park in 2027. Here’s how stadium naming rights work as IP licensing and what Fifth Third gains beyond fan approval.
As any trademark lawyer will tell clients considering a rebrand, the adoption of any new trademark involves risk. A search can identify potentially conflicting trademarks that could pose problems for use and/or registration of a new trademark.
Why would the United States grant inventors exclusive rights to their creations while simultaneously seeking to promote competition and innovation? The answer lies in the Patent Act of 1790, which established a framework that still shapes patent law today.
Before a brand makes headlines for the right reasons, it helps to make sure someone else doesn’t already own the name. A recent dispute involving Tesla offers a timely reminder that a great brand name can become an expensive problem.
One second became a surprisingly complicated piece of technology, intellectual property and sports governance in the 2026 collegiate season opening game.
With the end of Hot Dog Season quickly approaching, now is a good time to reflect on the innovative new growth that made this season what it is today.
The Ninth Circuit just reversed course on Jack Daniel's dilution claim against the 'Bad Spaniels' dog toy, vacating the injunction and ruling that parody humor alone doesn't prove reputational harm. Here's what the decision means for brand owners pursuing tarnishment claims.
The trading card industry is booming again - and what makes this moment different is not who holds the cards, literally and figuratively, but how the trading card space is rapidly evolving.
Imagine paying millions of dollars for the naming rights to a stadium—only to have your brand hidden behind a giant white tarp. That’s exactly what happened to Levi Strauss during the 2026 FIFA World Cup.
As we celebrate our nation’s birthday on July 4th, many communities are replacing or supplementing traditional fireworks with drone-based light shows - which prompts the question of intellectual property protection.
IDENTIFYING, SECURING AND ADVANCING CREATIVITY®
