Suit Alleges Stench Arising from Court of Master Sommeliers
Three persons who passed the September 2018 examination for the Master Sommelier Diploma and were admitted to the Court of Master Sommeliers, Americas Chapter, only to have their Master Sommelier title stripped away, sued the former directors of the Americas Chapter.
In a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for Northern California, the three allege the directors conducted a sham investigation and hearing into the circumstance in which the September 2018 examination was compromised. It seeks unspecified money damages and the revocation of the CMS's two trademarks of the term Master Sommelier.
"The sham investigation and hearing were conducted to give the appearance of propriety but were a devious maneuver to hide the former CMS board of directors own misdeed and misconduct," the suit alleges.
While someone who passes the CMS exam for introductory sommelier can expect to make $50,000 a year in salary, someone who earns the master sommelier diploma can make $150,000 a year, the suit claims.
The complaint alleges that sometime after the September 2018 examination and admission of the three plaintiffs, CMS learned that Reggie Narito, a director and proctor of the September 2018 exam, had improperly disclosed confidential information about the tasting portion of the examination via email to three candidates, two of whom successfully passed the tasting portion and were admitted as members.
After an investigation by CMS's own legal counsel – hardly an impartial investigator, the plaintiffs alleged – CMS then declared the entire tasting portion of the exam was compromised.
It took only 72 hours for a special board advisory committee overseeing the investigation to conclude "conclusively that it was impossible to determine who might have received or spread the information." That conclusion was reached, the complaint alleges, without any of the candidates who passed the tasting portion being interviewed, nor was Narito, the CMS director who allegedly disclosed the confidential information interviewed, nor were his emails reviewed.
The complaint alleges that the reason the investigation was so shoddy was to "avoid discovery and exposure of improper conduct of the members of the special advisory committee, conduct that likely would have led to suspension or termination of their CMS membership."
After invalidating the tasting portion of the September 2018 exam and conducting what the complaint alleges was a sham investigation, the plaintiffs membership in CMS was then terminated because – with the tasting portion invalidated – they hadn't passed the examination.
But the mere fact the exam had been invalidated didn't give CMS grounds to cancel the plaintiffs' membership, the suit alleges, because passing the test is not a requirement for CMS membership. Rather, one of the requirements for membership is that an applicant have been awarded a Master Sommelier Diploma. Those diplomas were never canceled or invalidated, the complaint alleges, and thus the plaintiffs' CMS memberships should not have been cancelled, their ability to use the MS initials after their names or to wear the MS pin prohibited.
Trademark Allegations
The complaint goes on to assert that while the Court of Master Sommeliers has two trademarks for Master Sommelier, it has "admitted that the term 'master sommelier' is a generic name for high level sommelier services and is unregistrable." It seeks the cancellation of the trademark registrations.