Bells suing a small brewer

wps-hbt
Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
GilaMinumBeer said:
Court battles are not about what is right. It is about what is legal.
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

oj-simpson-smiling-murder-trial.jpg
 
GilaMinumBeer said:
Regardless of who is doing what, boycott is ridiculous. Let them battle is out in the courts. Enjoy their products for what they are and the world keeps spinning. Buisiness is business. And short of an assassination, legal recourse is their legal right no matter what your opinion is.
Click to expand...

How do you like your crow?
 
When I go pro, I'm calling it "THE brewery", and anytime any brewery uses the word "the", I'm suing the snot out of them.
 
IslandLizard said:
On the other side of the argument, isn't this great advertising for Innovation Brewing? Now I know they exist I want to try their beer. Could this be part of a clever marketing strategy?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, no. I know the head brewer/owner and have brewed with him on his system. He mentioned this to me in September while I was there and it was perfectly clear to me that Bells and Innovation are definitely not in cahoots with each other.

This disgusts me beyond words but I will not elaborate other than to say Innovation makes fantastic beers that I would gladly drink over Bell's stuff any day. The only problem is you have to drive to Sylva, NC to get it. I really hope this backfires on them. Bell's distributes to NC and to the best of my knowledge every bar and store in Sylva has completed dumped all of its Bell's products. Asheville (which is a huge market for Bell's) is only 45 mins away. If Asheville starts taking on the fight, and Asheville is the kind of city to do that, then Bell's could really start seeing some damage to their bottom line.

I sincerely hope that happens.
 
"After she advised us that she would “let us” keep using the name in NC only, and never expand beyond it"- if this part alone of the statement on Innovation's Facebook page is true, I can't help but to side with the little guy on this one. It is ridiculous in this day and age to think that anything like this will not be seriously debated in social media.
 
TopherM said:
Mike, I have to point out that what you say about trademarks is very misleading, if not outright wrong.

First off, Apple does not own a trademark on the word Apple. The trademark on the product name "Apple" is actually owned by a lamp & lamp shade company, which no doubt has an agreement to let the computer company use it. Apple owns the trademark to the logo of the apple with the bite out of it.

You also can't trademark numbers, so Nascar does not own trademark on the number three. They own a particular logo design of the number three.

Learn a bit about trademark law. It's very reasonable.

And Bell's isn't particularly being sh**ty here. If they sent the small brewery a cease and desist to protect their rights, and the small brewery ignored it, then Bell's only choice is to sue. I would bet the lawsuit has nothing to do with $$$, and has more to do with the small brewery telling Bells to f-off after they asked them to stop violating their trademarks. Good businesses don't go around suing unless they have to, and Bell's is a good business, so I would bet they had to.
Click to expand...


It's NOT a trademarked word or phrase!
 
amcclai7 said:
Unfortunately, no. I know the head brewer/owner and have brewed with him on his system. He mentioned this to me in September while I was there and it was perfectly clear to me that Bells and Innovation are definitely not in cahoots with each other.

This disgusts me beyond words but I will not elaborate other than to say Innovation makes fantastic beers that I would gladly drink over Bell's stuff any day. The only problem is you have to drive to Sylva, NC to get it. I really hope this backfires on them. Bell's distributes to NC and to the best of my knowledge every bar and store in Sylva has completed dumped all of its Bell's products. Asheville (which is a huge market for Bell's) is only 45 mins away. If Asheville starts taking on the fight, and Asheville is the kind of city to do that, then Bell's could really start seeing some damage to their bottom line.

I sincerely hope that happens.
Click to expand...

Looks like the Asheville Brewers Alliance is backing Innovation Brewing on this one, and the ABA now has members like Sierra Nevada and Oskar Blues. I don't know much about the politics of the craft beer world, but it seems like this could get interesting.
 
Bells has always annoyed me. They design wonderful beers but refuse to really focus on growing the business to its full potential. They've got a very pretentious crunchy little Kalamazoo attitude. Their attacks on other craft breweries and LHBSs' never surprise me. Lame. You'd think after so many years they would have built a little more confidence in their brand and superb brews, increased distribution more, and simply grown the overall business way more. Maybe Larry should read "Brewing up a Business".
 
had Bell's simply put a ™ after their slogan, or paid for the ®, then I would side with them

they didn't, so "tough titties"™ (now anyone who wants to name their brewery Tough Titties™ has to deal with ME!)

you'll notice Bell's logo & new slogan ("Inspired Brewing") EACH are registered with the USPTO.

they would have a case against Inspired Brewing, but they're SOL against Innovation.

Locally, Old Ox Brewery has their trademarks being challenged by Red Bull, who claims exclusivity against bovine names, all soft drinks and the colors red, blue and silver.

OO's first logo included bullhorns and the slogan "no bull beer" and when Red Bull claimed infringement, Old Ox complied, changing the logo and dropping the slogan. Now there is no connection to cows (Old Ox is the name of a local road here in Loudoun County) and no slogan.

Red Bull countered with the demand they also change their name ("an ox is a castrated bull"), demanded they NEVER make soft drinks (OO would like to make root beer someday, but promised to never make an energy drink) plus the demand on certain portions of the color wheel.
 
Dunno if this has been posted before, it´s the statement from the Bells Twitter feed.
B_53zmoUYAEBqEU.png
 
GilaMinumBeer said:
Court battles are not about what is right. It is about what is legal.
Click to expand...

And that doesn't seem like a problem? Why should it be legal to do something that is wrong. Perhaps I am just a bit too literal, by I always thought that the legal system was there to help legislate right from wrong. Silly me.
 
Kiichi said:
Dunno if this has been posted before, it´s the statement from the Bells Twitter feed.
Click to expand...

yes, TWICE

Ridire said:
This was on Bell's Facebook page today:
Click to expand...

Homercidal said:
Interesting. I just saw this on Bell's Facebook page. It kind of adds another twist into the whole thing. Apparently there was some amount of missing information regarding the dispute (as well knew there would be.)

To our Bell’s customers and the passionate craft beer community,

We want to clear up a few things regarding our federal trademark dispute with Innovation Brewing.

1. We have not, and are not asking them to change their name or their logo. There is no lawsuit. We are not suing them. We have not asked them for money. We have not asked them to stop selling their beer. We are asking them to withdraw their federal trademark application.

2. Our concern is with their United States trademark application and potential impact on our brand, which we have spent 30 years building.

3. I personally reached out to Innovation Brewing to try to settle this matter in February, 2014 and attempted to talk about this brewer to brewer instead of involving lawyers. Our efforts were rebuffed and Innovation Brewing choose to pursue this in the legal system.

4. Over the last year, we have offered co-existence agreements and have offered to pay for their legal fees. We tried to find solutions that would work for both of us. Their response was to ask for an exorbitant amount of money and we did not feel that was a collaborative solution.

5. All offers that we proposed were rejected and after more than a year of discussion regrettably, this matter has moved to the federal trademark office.

We have the utmost respect for Innovation Brewing and we are going to keep any comments we have regarding this matter positive, honest, and collaborative. We want them to continue to brew and do the good work they’re doing under their own name.

We hope to resolve this as swiftly as the system will allow.

The passion that we have seen over the past few days is a testament to how much the beer industry means to those who support it and why we are proud to be a part of it. We always appreciate further feedback and invite everyone to continue to share their concerns with us directly: http://bellsbeer.com/contact/

Sincerely,

Laura S. Bell
Vice President
Bell’s Brewery, Inc.
Click to expand...

plus Innovation's response

Highside said:
From Innovation's facebook...

"To Our Wonderful Craft Beer Community:

We felt it was important to get our story out to the media because this is an important matter for the craft beer industry. We did not intend (nor do we want to) have a social media battle with Bell's, but because of allegations posted on Bell’s Brewery’s Facebook page we now have to defend ourselves. Settlement discussions are protected communications that are not to be disclosed publicly, so out of respect to Bell’s Brewery’s rights we would never have disclosed them. Furthermore, Mr. Bell pointedly stated that he would not “play this out on social media” – and so we again respected his wishes by keeping the details to ourselves. Now, it appears they changed their mind.

We are planning to deliver a full statement of the facts and events that have brought us to this point. Until then, we feel it necessary to respond to Ms. Bell’s enumerated allegations. Thank you for continuing to support and believe in us. You keep us going through this difficult time.

1. Yes, this is a TM proceeding and not a lawsuit, although it is like a lawsuit, requiring legal representation, being personally deposed, and including a trial. They are asking us to withdraw our federal trademark application for our brand name.
2. We do not believe that any human on earth would confuse Innovation Brewing with Bell’s Brewery, despite their slogans.
3. Laura Bell did contact me at 7:00 pm the night before their opposition filing was due. They had already hired attorneys to represent them and file for their extension to file the opposition. We had not hired an attorney. After she advised us that she would “let us” keep using the name in NC only, and never expand beyond it, she said that we had until the next day at 5:00 PM to respond. That is 22 hours to find an attorney and decide on the future of our business. That was the one and only attempt Ms. Bell made to contact me. From there their attorneys took over.
4. Not a single co-existence agreement has ever been presented to us by Bell's. In fact it was we who submitted a written co-existence agreement – subsequently declined by Bell’s. The only monetary compensation they have ever offered us was $2,500 which was to cover the inconvenience of being forced to abandon our trademark and go register a different one. The “legal fees”, as Ms. Bell puts it, brought on by their legal action against us, may exceed $50,000. We did not feel like being bought off.
5. This matter was before the TM office one day after she began talking to us. No offer has ever been presented to us other than the offer to limit our business to NC or take $2,500 to start over and build a new brand. We believe in our business, so those are not really offers at all.
6. In regards to Laura Bell stating "we hope to resolve this as swiftly as the system will allow" we suggested the accelerated trademark opposition process that would have brought this to a legal end much sooner and with far less expense, but Bell's denied it.

You great people don’t deserve to be peppered with sides of the story. So we will give you a full account of the facts so you can decide for yourself. We are good people and we know we have your support. Stay tuned.

-Chip and Nicole"
Click to expand...
 
Bells claims that Innovation chose to pursue this via the legal system; however, it sounds to me like Bells did when they filed the opposition to the trademark request. The filing of the opposition is technically the first legal step that was taken to prevent the TM from being approved. Unless Bells is trying to say that Innovation filed the TM request and therefore took the first legal step. In that case, while true, it is not exactly the same. The opposition is where this got ugly, not a brewery doing what is right by requesting a TM of their brand.

Maybe I'm wrong or I missed one of the numerous posts about this on social media. I don't follow either brewery on FB and I rarely check Twitter.
 
Hello said:
Bells claims that Innovation chose to pursue this via the legal system; however, it sounds to me like Bells did when they filed the opposition to the trademark request. The filing of the opposition is technically the first legal step that was taken to prevent the TM from being approved.
Click to expand...

Bell's asked nicely for them to retract their application. Innovation's argument is that they only gave them 24 hours to consider it before Bell filed the official opposition. Was 24 hours a reasonable time frame? Could Innovation's refusal to retract their application be considered the first "legal step?" It's not exactly black-and-white.
 
kombat said:
I'm talking about laws that are actually enforced, not obscure anachronistic relics from a century ago. How many states still have laws against sodomy on the books?
Click to expand...

zero

Lawrence v. Texas struck down all anti-sodomy laws in states which still had them as of 2003
 
kombat said:
Bell's asked nicely for them to retract their application. Innovation's argument is that they only gave them 24 hours to consider it before Bell filed the official opposition. Was 24 hours a reasonable time frame? Could Innovation's refusal to retract their application be considered the first "legal step?" It's not exactly black-and-white.
Click to expand...

No to both questions.
 
Another thing I am trying to figure out is why Bell's didn't have a trademark on their slogan. At their size and the fact that they use it on items that they sell seems like a bad business decision or at a minimum a bad oversight.

Also, trying to understand what the point of having a process to register a trademark is if you can use something that hasn't ever been registered and then legally fight to say it is yours. Seems like a somewhat meaningless process if that is the case.
 
I don't see how this impacts "Bell's brand". In fact, that claim seems "patently" ridiculous. Their brand is "Bell's". They're surely not so obtuse as to think they invented "innovation".
 
Hello said:
Bells claims that Innovation chose to pursue this via the legal system; however, it sounds to me like Bells did when they filed the opposition to the trademark request. The filing of the opposition is technically the first legal step that was taken to prevent the TM from being approved. Unless Bells is trying to say that Innovation filed the TM request and therefore took the first legal step. In that case, while true, it is not exactly the same. The opposition is where this got ugly, not a brewery doing what is right by requesting a TM of their brand.

Maybe I'm wrong or I missed one of the numerous posts about this on social media. I don't follow either brewery on FB and I rarely check Twitter.
Click to expand...

Innovation could hardly be the one to start the legal process. They were the ones filing for the trademark.

Bells claimed is that they were FORCED into it by Innovation's refusal to deal with the trademark dispute outside of the courts.
 
kombat said:
Bell's asked nicely for them to retract their application. Innovation's argument is that they only gave them 24 hours to consider it before Bell filed the official opposition. Was 24 hours a reasonable time frame? Could Innovation's refusal to retract their application be considered the first "legal step?" It's not exactly black-and-white.
Click to expand...

Well, while not black and white, there is no way that 22 hours can be considered a fair and reasonable amount of time to make such a decision. They were being asked to decide to basically re-brand their business overnight. Could their refusal be seen as a first legal step? If you're Bells and you want to draw attention away from being nothing more than a bully, then yes. However, I don't believe that it is a first legal step by definition, but to Bells, it likely looked like a veiled threat that they would see this play out in the courts before they re-branded their business. As a result, I can see a little of both sides, but I too would never be able to decide to re-brand my business overnight. If I had to make a choice in that timeframe, I would say no because it would have seemed like the better choice for my business.

For anyone who didn't know of Innovation, it's my understanding that they do have a bit of a following and their beers are fantastic. Their only downfall, if there is one, is that they're not smack dab in the center of Asheville where they can get maximum exposure.
 
Hello said:
Well, while not black and white, there is no way that 22 hours can be considered a fair and reasonable amount of time to make such a decision. They were being asked to decide to basically re-brand their business overnight. Could their refusal be seen as a first legal step? If you're Bells and you want to draw attention away from being nothing more than a bully, then yes. However, I don't believe that it is a first legal step by definition, but to Bells, it likely looked like a veiled threat that they would see this play out in the courts before they re-branded their business. As a result, I can see a little of both sides, but I too would never be able to decide to re-brand my business overnight. If I had to make a choice in that timeframe, I would say no because it would have seemed like the better choice for my business.

For anyone who didn't know of Innovation, it's my understanding that they do have a bit of a following and their beers are fantastic. Their only downfall, if there is one, is that they're not smack dab in the center of Asheville where they can get maximum exposure.
Click to expand...

But this assumes that Bells is lying in their public statement, as opposed to Innovation. That may be the case, but why leap to the conclusion as to who is lying here without evidence?

If Bell's version of the story is correct, they did not ask anyone to rebrand anything.

We man never know who is telling the truth here, as it will likely end in some sort of confidential settlement...
 
kombat said:
Couldn't the same thing be said about Innovation Brewing? Except they're the ones actually trying to claim the trademark.
Click to expand...

Ahh, so is Bells. Bells is perusing litigation because they've been using the word "innovation" in their slogan for years (even though most ppl have never heard it).
 
Ridire said:
But this assumes that Bells is lying in their public statement, as opposed to Innovation. That may be the case, but why leap to the conclusion as to who is lying here without evidence?

If Bell's version of the story is correct, they did not ask anyone to rebrand anything.

We man never know who is telling the truth here, as it will likely end in some sort of confidential settlement...
Click to expand...

Bells did not ask anyone to rebrand... so long as IB never expands outside of their home state.
 
mbbransc said:
Ahh, so is Bells. Bells is perusing litigation because they've been using the word "innovation" in their slogan for years (even though most ppl have never heard it).
Click to expand...

Not necessarily true. Bells may be only asking that they trademark Innovation is applying for, not be used to sue Bells after the fact.

The refusal to work with Bells (justified or not) is what pushed Bells to attempt to block the trademark to protect themselves from future issues over the trademark.
 
I think we're all ignoring the obvious. "Innovation Brewing" is a terrible name for a brewery. "Oh, you're a brewery, but you're innovative? FINALLY, a craft brewery willing to brew something outside the box!"

Newsflash: EVERY craft/micro/nano brewery considers themselves to be "innovative." Multiple books have been written on the topic, long before Nicole and Chip got the idea to open a brewery. Is Stone not "innovative?" Is Rogue not "innovative?" Is Dogfish Head not "innovative?" Is that the best name they could come up with?

Note that Dogfish Head has never been in a trademark dispute over their name - because it's a great combination of totally unique, and memorable.

If they put as little effort into designing their beers as they did in coming up with a name, I don't hold out much hope for "Innovative Brewing." It's the kind of name a team of high school business class students would come up with for their term project team name.
 
kombat said:
I think we're all ignoring the obvious. "Innovation Brewing" is a terrible name for a brewery. "Oh, you're a brewery, but you're innovative? FINALLY, a craft brewery willing to brew something outside the box!"

Newsflash: EVERY craft/micro/nano brewery considers themselves to be "innovative." multiple books have been written on the topic, long before Nicole and Chip got the idea to open a brewery. Is Stone not "innovative?" Is Rogue not "innovative?" Is Dogfish Head not "innovative?" Is that the best name they could come up with?

Note that Dogfish Head has never been in a trademark dispute over their name - because it's a great combination of totally unique, and memorable.

If they put as little effort into designing their beers as they did in coming up with a name, I don't hold out much hope for "Innovative Brewing." It's the kind of name a team of high school business class students would come up with for their term project team name.
Click to expand...

Well, to be honest, I thought the name a bit pretentious, myself, but that's neither here nor there.
 
mbbransc said:
Ahh, so is Bells. Bells is perusing litigation because they've been using the word "innovation" in their slogan for years (even though most ppl have never heard it).
Click to expand...

Bells, according to statement, is not claiming trademark. They are attempting to prevent themselves from being sued over a non-trademarked slogan.

I've seen the bumper sticker. Never heard of Innovation Brewing until now. Make a difference? No.

$_35.JPG
 

Similar threads

JB_Brewing2
Bells loses trademark case.
Replies
2
Views
629
betarhoalphadelta
betarhoalphadelta
P
Hearing Bell's Side
Replies
11
Views
2K
madscientist451
madscientist451
M
Book Review: The Home Brewer's Guide to Vintage Beer / Let's Brew
Replies
0
Views
2K
midlantic
M
I
Seems Official - Northern Brewer/Midwest/AB Inbev/Budweiser/SAP/Miller
Replies
23
Views
3K
WaltStarr
W
Z
Let's Talk About Mad Fritz
Replies
27
Views
3K
pen15clubmember
pen15clubmember
Williams Brewing 300

Latest posts

Back
Top