Hi Chiqita,
This is a great discussion, well, for some people I guess ;-) Sorry, it's the attorney coming out in me. I'm not an expert in this area, but I have done some research and education over the years as a student of enology. So as I teach my business classes, there's really no such thing as "international law." There are a few laws that have some teeth, but most require the parties involved to submit to the WTO, etc, and believe it or not, when the WTO makes a decision (Brazil v US relating to cotton subsidies), the country that looses often thumbs its nose at the decision, and fails to comply (think, US losing). So the regulation in this country of the use of Champagne is not because France has created AOC's, which would make it illegal in France, but because in recent years we've signed trade agreements with France and so, if we want the benefits of those agreements, we don't infringe on the use of the word Champagne. So…as to the use of the term "La Bresse Gauloise," Frances desire to control the word is for all intents and purposes, irrelevant in the US, UNLESS, at some point a trade agreement is (or has been) signed with France under which the use of the word is prohibited. Again, this is my understanding of international law, the wine trade agreements, and how this would affect "La Bresse Gauloise." If you look at Greenfire's original info, I believe they say they "decided" to use the term American Bresse, not that they had to. If someone knows otherwise, let me know. Thanks for inspiring this process, it made me remember law school all over again ;-)
Best,
Brice @ SF