This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
News
Winery cites Prince’s teetotalism to defend ‘Purple Rain’ wine from lawsuit
L’uva Bella Winery was sued last Summer when the estate of the former artist formerly known as Prince argued that their “Purple Rain” wine brand would be confused with the musician’s most famous song.
However, the lawyer defending L’uva Bella has fought back with a new defence citing Prince’s refusal to drink. “To the extent Prince was famous, he was equally famous for his disdain of alcohol…the fans of Prince, knowledgable about his beliefs and views, would never associate an alcohol-containing product with the artist.”
Prince once described “drugs, sex and alcohol” as experiences which “can be very funky, but they’re just paths, a diversion, not the answer.”
Prince recorded Purple Rain in 1983 and it was released the following year alongside the film of the same name. The song is listed on Rolling Stone’s 500 Greatest Songs of All Time at number 18. For the film’s score, Prince received an Academy Award. Purple Rain-Concord is an off sweet red wine which retails for $7.99 and is described as “multi-award winning”.
L’uva Bella has been labelling wines as Purple Rain since 2015. In 2019 they received the trademark for grape wine branded as Purple Rain. Lawyers representing Prince’s estate argued that there was no doubt that “Purple Rain signifies Prince”. As one of the major wine distributors in the eastern United States, the Ohio-based company prides itself on making wine “fun” and “approachable”. They are hoping to expand operations beyond the 7 states their brands currently retail in.
Wines associated with celebrities do appeal to consumers, though the defendants argue that any association is purely coincidental and that they are not creating the “false suggestion of a connection.”
Though they never meant to cause any sorrow, or any pain, the defendants argue that the Prince estate’s actions contradict the values “of the now deceased artist.”
Related news
Federal Trade Commission readies lawsuit against Southern Glazer's