FeaturedSpecial ReportsHeadlinesSend to App
The Controversy Over ‘Karas’—A Term for Commerce or Cultural Heritage?
For many villagers across Armenia, karases—the egg-shaped terracotta jugs used for winemaking in the region—aren’t worth the basement space they occupy. Despite the fact that in recent years, they have become a symbol of ancient civilization in the region and a testament to Armenia’s viticultural significance (giving it an edge over its friendly rival, Georgia), karases as an instrument have fallen farther and farther into a well of obscurity.
Already a subscriber?Log in here
This story is FREE for you...
Create a free account to access this and four more articles, and get more sent to you with our e-newsletter.By submitting your email address you agree for Hairenik Association, Inc. to send you communication by email.
Thank you Ms Vann for an informative and balanced article about this controversy.
In my view, both sides have merit; both sides have done tremendous good to the Armenian wine industry, to Armenia’s reputation as a wine –producing country and to Armenia in general. It reminds me of the dispute between Hovnanian and Cafesdjian, both individuals dedicated to helping Armenia. Sad.
Just as a hunch, I went to the website of the Intellectual Property Agency of Armenia (www.aipa.am) to see if anyone has registered a trademark for the word “churn” and sure enough, “ԽՆՈՑԻԿ” is registered (Reg. No. 23576) and dairy products are included in the goods associated with the mark.
If the Eurnekians are successful, it would create a precedent for the owner of “ԽՆՈՑԻԿ” to potentially prevent anyone from using this term on a label for butter made using a traditional Armenian butter churn. Probably not a fair result.
I don’t think this is a sad situation. It is important for cases like this to happen in Armenia because it is an opportunity to show the international community that Armenian’s Intellectual Property laws are well developed, which encourages investment there, assuming that the outcomes are consistent and fair.
“Consumers should know exactly what products they are buying” states the director of Karas Wines. Consumers buying a wine labeled Karas Wines are not buying a karas-produced wine! Worse, they are buying a product from a company that appears to want to obliterate karas-produced wines from Armenia by claiming ownership of the only word used to describe them. Consumers need to know this is what they are supporting when they purchase a product from Karas Wines.
The effort from Eurnekian’s camp should go towards making sure the media, the supermarkets, and others at large understand the difference between their product and other products. In other words, instead of wasting money on lawyers, they can be spending money to educate the population and the market. That would be much more useful for everyone and less fratricidal. The focus should be on elevating ALL Armenian wines.
Thanks for informing us about the differences between these two brands. I was at a wine & cheese shop in Yerevan, and asked for Karasi and was offered Karas Reserve for the same price. The sommellier didn’t think there is much difference between them (really?). There is also a restaurant chain in Yerevan with the name Karas, if Eurnikian doesn’t already own that chain, maybe he should sue them too?
No comment on the case but rather on the flavors:
As a wine drinker I must add that The latest blend of the
2015 Karas Red is inferior to its original blend and this does not add to the reliability of the winery since both blends had the same vintage and nomenclature on the front of the bottle
Just want to point out that ZORAH wines was started NOT when “news of the discovery of Areni-1 cave spread”. Rather, it began in 2000 long before the discovery of the Areni-1 cave which, incidentally, was in 2007. Also ZORAH did not “see an opportunity” in Karas winemaking after the discovery of the Arenì-1 cave. From the very start it intended to use the Karas in its wine-making process not because it intended to “capitalize on a more global trend in the wine community” but rather, because ZORAH believes that wine-making in the Armenian Karas are the most traditional, pure and authentic way to tell the millennial story of Armenian winemaking.
Interesting read. Miss Vann is trying to deliver a fair and balanced report. But, I would argue that Karas wines position is so flawed at so many levels that it just doesn’t hold water. Let’s face it, in a country where unfortunately almost all is corrupt, including the juridical system, how can one give any weight to a survey carried out and paid for by the Eurnekian team? “I pay. You write what I say!” No brainer! Also if the issue is confusion between Zorah Karasi and Karas wines and the intention is not to have exclusivity of the word, then why is Karas wines taking to court other wineries? I would say that everyone is in agreement that this is a mess created by Armenia’s IP department. Why was Karas wines granted binding registration of the word “no questions asked” in the first place? And if this is all a mess created by the IP department and not the fault of either party then why are the courts so blatantly pro karas?
Karas Wines would also do well not to use the families for which it provides work as bait and dangle them in front of consumers as some kind of accolade for its company. Are the families working in other wineries somehow less significant or important? Whether Karas wines likes it or not (and I don’t think many will argue ) the fact is that Zorah is probably the one single winery that has had the largest impact on showing the potential of Armenian wine on an international scale. It has been the pull which has brought enormous investments to the region which in turn equates to hundreds and hundreds of work opportunities!
Nevertheless this situation is unfortunate and had Armenia’s government and juridical system played it fair it would have never arrived to this point!