Duckhorn vs. Duck Commander

In 2012, an A&E reality show called Duck Dynasty became one of the consistently highest-rated cable television programs of all time, breaking multiple network records including the most watched cable premiere with over 11.8 million people tuning in for the first episode of S2. The finale of S3 beat out American Idol by 34%. The story of a self-made Southerner named Phil Robertson, who amassed a multimillion dollar fortune off the invention of an innovative duck call for hunters, Duck Dynasty emphasizes themes of family, faith and patriotism**. 

Just as Bethenny Frankel leveraged her fame from Bravo's Real Housewives to launch SkinnyGirl Margaritas (later acquired by Beam Global for $120 million), Phil and the Robertson family launched their own wine - Duck Commander - in 2013, offering 4 varietals exclusively through Walmart, each with an SRP of $10. Each varietal is named after a bird and suggested food pairings include descriptions such as:

"Most y’all don’t know that frogs legs are the perfect dish to pair with the round flavors of Duck Commander Red. Both have hints of spice that will have you hopping up for more."

"The creamy texture of Miss Kay's Boiled Squirrel & Dumplings is a natural fit for Duck Commander Chardonnay. The buttery notes of the wine and the full, rich flavors of the dish go together better than beards and bandanas."

And on the back of each label, a message from the Robertson patriarch:

"The Robertson’s, of TV’s Duck Dynasty fame, live out the American Dream while staying true to their rugged outdoorsman lifestyle and Southern roots. This wildly successful Louisiana bayou family has remained grounded in what matters; God, family and friends, good food and fun."

Willie Robertson also launched the wine with the statement: "Yuppie folks ain’t the only ones who can enjoy good wine. This is good wine for good people, and it’s made by good people.” California's Trinchero Family Estates produces the wine itself, while the Robertsons make creative decisions on packaging and marketing, including camouflaged labels.

Quickly, trouble fermented. In January of 2014, Duckhorn Vineyards sued the Robertsons, Sutter House, and Walmart (the wine's exclusive retailer) for trademark infringement. Some argue that Duckhorn Vineyards was simply policing and protecting its trademark, and not allowing their brand to be weakened by use of the similar marks by new entrants into the market. Others argued that Duckhorn was being a "trademark bully." I dug into trademark infringement, and specifically Duckhorn's past with similar lawsuits, to develop an opinion.

Trademark infringement is the unauthorized use of an trademark (or similar mark) on a related or competing good. Duckhorn claimed that the defendent's use of the word "Duck" on its mark could cause "confusion, deception, or mistake" among average consumers. In its suit against Duck Commander, Duckhorn also made claims of brand dilution - a status awarded only to "famous" brands. If a brand is considered well-known enough, it qualifies for categorization under a dilution doctrine which says that the trademark can be protected across product lines. Despite the wines being sold to different consumers, for different price points, at different retailers, Duckhorn, which had been using its trademark for 30 years, asserted that it feared consumers might purchase Duck Commander wine thinking it was their own, resulting in lost sales and tarnishing of their brand.

Duck Commander was not Duckhorn's first target. Duckhorn fired at and settled against Oregon's Duck Pond Cellars in the 90's. In 1999, Cecchetti Sebastiani Cellar released a brand of wine called Smoking Duck. Duckhorn filed suit, and Sebastiani agreed to rename the wine Smoking Loon. They then took aim at Pindar Vineyard's Duck Walk Vineyard brand in the early 2000's. The settlement allowed Duck Walk to continue to make wine, but clearly label it as made in New York. As with the others, Duck Commander settled under private terms.

My personal opinion is that this lawsuit revealed a missed opportunity for Duckhorn.  Immediately upon launch, Duck Commander wines were visible to almost 12 million television viewers. Within weeks of the wine's release, it was featured on The Today Show and CNBC Hard Money, and in People, Glamour, Entertainment Weekly, Wine Spectator, The Reverse Wine Snob, The Napa Valley Press Democrat, The Examiner, and CountryMusicRocks.net. That said, exposure alone won't drive sales. What is compelling about this opportunity is its potential to attract an entirely new wine drinker into the market - and one who likely will not be interested in premium wines at Duckhorn's price point. Rather than target Duck Commander, why did Duckhorn not seize this opportunity to partner and diversify (see below for heat maps of Duck Dynasty viewership vs. US wine consumption), keeping its association as quiet as Grgich keeps its biodynamicism? 

Duck Dynasty Viewership

Compare this map to one of how much wine per person each state consumed in 2013:

Over the last decade, sales of cheap wine have fallen considerably while wine sales overall continued to grow. A 2015 USBevX trade report predicted that due specifically to increases in Millenial consumption, cheap wines (<$8 per bottle, favored by older consumers) will continue to decline in sales, and as a result, a substantial number of vineyards in California’s Central Valley will be uprooted and planted to other crops. The exit of existing competitors, coupled with loyalty to the Duck Commander brand, and the potential creation of an entirely new consumer segment represents an opportunity for partnership rather than litigiousness.

Do you think that this lawsuit was necessary? Do you believe that trademark infringement really occurred, and that brand dilution was possible? Looking forward to your comments!

**I do not watch, nor do I endorse this show in any way. I remain appalled by the homophobic and racist comments that its "stars" made in interviews after the show's release.