Big_Belgian
Well-Known Member
If it was that easy for his lawyer to find the name in a Google search, then anybody can find it that easy. Lets say someone had their beer and liked it. They go home and do a search and come across a homebrewers sig saying "Yada yada yada brewery". With the stigma surrounding homebrewing by non homebrewers, the person could say "These guys make beer in their bathtub, i aint drinkin that no more". His thinking could be that he doesnt want a hobby brewer losing him customers. Although the hobby brewer might be making better beer than his. IMO he should have hand written the letter and stapled it to the side of a mixed case of his full lineup. THAT would have been sexy.
This could be a concern, but as others have noted, the real issue is that the owner of a brand has to take steps to protect the brand, even in cases where there is no real threat of competition. This could have nothing to do with this particular homebrewer. In a future case, there might be a real threat to their brand from another source who is actually competing and using their tradename or logo. If they end up in a legal battle with that hypothetical future competitor, they now have at least one piece of evidence in their file showing a historical effort to enforce their rights in the brand. Conversely, had they done nothing, their opponent in that hypothetical future case could use their inaction against them, as evidence that they knowingly allowed others to use the brand, which is inconsistent with a claim that the brand is valuable and exclusive.