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.
sudbuddy said:
Here is a reply I got from Laura Bell regarding this issue. It seems like she really did all she could to prevent a legal battle and it was Innovation, not Bells, that was being sh!tty about all of this:

Dear: Mr. Carroll:



Thank you for reaching out. We want to clear up a few things regarding our federal trademark dispute with Innovation Brewing.



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



Sincerely,



Laura S. Bell

Vice President

Bell’s Brewery, Inc.
Click to expand...

That is a cut and paste of the FB post that has been posted on this thread several times. If true, that's great, but Innovation has put out a public statement that basically says "Laura Bell is lying". Who to believe...?
 
sudbuddy said:
Here is a reply I got from Laura Bell regarding this issue. It seems like she really did all she could to prevent a legal battle and it was Innovation, not Bells, that was being sh!tty about all of this:

Dear: Mr. Carroll:



Thank you for reaching out. We want to clear up a few things regarding our federal trademark dispute with Innovation Brewing.



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



Sincerely,



Laura S. Bell

Vice President

Bell’s Brewery, Inc.
Click to expand...

So, you got her facebook post?
 
CTRL-C + CTRL-V.

To be fair, however, I'm sure they're busy as hell over there.
 
Grannyknot said:
Since making a personal decision to not buy any more of a certain product is apparently now seen as ludicrous & mass cyber bullying towards large companies (In the case that others share your viewpoint), I've decided to not buy any more of Bell's product ONLY because I believe it to be overpriced.

There.
Click to expand...

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSGkBWYDmrM[/ame]
 
I haven't read through the whole thread, I expect it is much like the ones I have seen on Facebook and elsewhere.

I know Larry Bell from way back, he gave me my first job in the industry in 1989, so I do admit to a little bias. For what it's worth, Larry is one of the nicest guys I have ever met and I know he doesn't deal with stuff like this flippantly.

I have also dealt with trademark issues in the industry and I can see the tin of worms that would be opened if Bell's didn't pursue some kind of action.

Here is an article with an interview with Larry regarding this issue:

http://mibiz.com/item/22297-editor’s-notebook-larry-bell-unsettled-by-anger-toward-bell’s-brewery
 
To you guys a few posts back...

Technically, Ctrl-C / Ctrl-V is a "Copy and Paste." That was actually a Jeopardy question last night, and the guy got it wrong answering "Cut and Paste." And the Trebek would NEVER lie.
 
If anyone should be suing these chumps its Adnams. They already have an IPA called Innovation.
 
The Bells didn't want this to play out in social media, but now it's way beyond that. If Mr. Bell is indeed losing sleep over this and truly has not forgotten his roots, why not spin this public relations nightmare on it's head? He should make a public, legitimate, reasonable offer to settle amicably in front of the entire business and craft beer community. Mrs. Bell says they want to work collaboratively and that they have made several offers, so why not capatalize on this as an opportunity to show solidarity. Publicize an offer. Then, if it is reasonable, Bell's reputation will be heightened and Innovation will be the ones to look silly if they refuse such an offer.
 
All of you had better "lawyer up" because if I catch any of you using the term "home brew" you're going to hear from my attorney. I've got dibs on the term. Firsties.
 
AZ_IPA said:
The craft beer swimming pool is going to get more and more crowded, and it's going to get uglier and uglier....
Click to expand...

Mmmm, craft beer swimming pool.

Beer-Swim-pool_620_1760118a.jpg


(But needs less sausage)
 
madscientist451 said:
A search of the US patent office website turned two entries for Innovation brewing, here's one:

http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4801:4t5dgm.3.1

The website doesn't list objections, but I did locate the examining attorney's remarks about the application:

The trademark examining attorney has searched the USPTO’s database of registered and pending marks and has found no conflicting marks that would bar registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d). TMEP §704.02; see 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).

I can't find any reference to any objection by Bell's brewing, maybe they don't put objections on the USPTO website. The above remarks by the examining attorney would indicate that the Trademark application should be granted. If Bell's doesn't like the decision, they can appeal it.
If Bell's slogan "brewing innovation since 1985" was so important to them, they should have registered it as a trademark.
You snooze, you loose. Or life's a b*tch, then you......
Click to expand...


Here is Bell's Notice of Opposition.

http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/ttabvue-91215896-OPP-1.pdf

It spells out fairly clearly what Bell's believes. I don't know the law and the whole idea of common law when it comes to trademarks still runs counter to the idea of even having a regeistered trademark, but I am no lawyer.
 
mcartt11 said:
Here is Bell's Notice of Opposition.

http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/ttabvue-91215896-OPP-1.pdf

It spells out fairly clearly what Bell's believes. I don't know the law and the whole idea of common law when it comes to trademarks still runs counter to the idea of even having a regeistered trademark, but I am no lawyer.
Click to expand...

So the bulk of Bell's argument is that Innovation Brewing is similar enough to their trademarked slogan "Inspired Brewing" to cause confusion for the consumer, which I think is a bit of a stretch. The un-trademarked "Bottling Innovation Since 1985" is presented as almost an afterthought, probably because the former is actually trademarked.
 
Thanks to mcartt11 for digging up Bell's actual notice of opposition filed with the US patent office. If you download and read the document, its clearly shows that Bell's
started using the phrase "inspired brewing" back in in 1983, and indeed did receive a trademark for that.
What's interesting about this is that none of Bell's public statements about this issue
have said anything about the phrase "inspired brewing". I guess if they don't want the public to know how lame their argument really is.
The complaint by Bell's goes on to say that the phrase "bottling innovation" WAS trademarked by them in 1989. They then complain that "bottling innovation" is easily confused with Innovation Brewing and that Bell's will suffer damage if the Innovation Brewing trademark is approved.
Bell's hired attorneys from Kalamazoo Michigan and New York City to oppose the Innovation Trademark.
My 2 cents: Bell's is clearly trying to outspend and bully the small NC brewery.
Innovation Brewing is somewhat similar to "bottling innovation" but not similar to "inspired brewing". I don't see Bell's brewing being damaged by a brewery called Innovation Brewing at all. Its a bunch a BS.
I agree with the members on here that Bell's is out of line, overreaching, bullying and generally being bunch of d**chy a-holes. Our local pub had some Bell's on tap one time and I thought it sucked, can't remember what it was, but in any case I'm not going to try any more of their beer until they settle this and let the small brewery have their trademark.
Thanks again to mcartt11 for finding the opposition document.
For anyone who wants to read it for themselves, here it is again:

http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/ttabvue-91215896-OPP-1.pdf
 
So, according to that paper there is a trademark for "bottling innovation (since 1985)" established in 2009.

Regardless of similarities, appears to me that Bells has a more valid argument. Is it BS, yes. But the industry as a whole has created this and it has become the status quo. Is it not a Bells innovation.
 
I'm not seeing a registration number or application date on "bottling innovation", only on "inspired brewing".
 
GilaMinumBeer said:
So, according to that paper there is a trademark for "bottling innovation (since 1985)" established in 2009.

Regardless of similarities, appears to me that Bells has a more valid argument. Is it BS, yes. But the industry as a whole has created this and it has become the status quo. Is it not a Bells innovation.
Click to expand...


First Gila, the whole "Bells innovation.." Witty, I'll give you that. And Im asking a genuine question here because I can see there is something all of us can learn from this..

In the opposition filing presented by Bell's, its clear that "Inspired Brewing" is trademarked. Its also clear that, while the phrase "brewing innovation" has been used by Bells in the past, it has not been trademarked. How does that give Bells a valid argument to prevent Innovation from using it?? And if there is a valid argument, how does this affect the right to fight for and protect a businesses trademarks?
 
"Infringe on their brand", that's laughable. I will say, if Innovations can survive this, they will have quite a few new customers. Bell's on the other hand...
 
Highside said:
I'm not seeing a registration number or application date on "bottling innovation", only on "inspired brewing".
Click to expand...

Ooops! sorry, you are correct, they didn't get a trademark for "bottling innovation since 1985" their complaint says they "adopted" the phrase as a trademark in 1989. So I guess they never registered it as an official trademark. Seems like the attorneys for Bell's are trying to assert that there is a trademark because Bell's was using it but didn't register it. Good catch
 
And I am just sitting here, having a pint, following the thing, but waiting with judgement until I can reasonably make some. Till then I am just looking forward to trying Bells at CBC15.

Just wonder if there will be a clear a**hole at the end or if it might turn out to be a misscomunication leading to a series of sh*tty things.
 
TrustyOlJohnson said:
First Gila, the whole "Bells innovation.." Witty, I'll give you that. And Im asking a genuine question here because I can see there is something all of us can learn from this..

In the opposition filing presented by Bell's, its clear that "Inspired Brewing" is trademarked. Its also clear that, while the phrase "brewing innovation" has been used by Bells in the past, it has not been trademarked. How does that give Bells a valid argument to prevent Innovation from using it?? And if there is a valid argument, how does this affect the right to fight for and protect a businesses trademarks?
Click to expand...

Perhaps I misread, it appeared to me that the document stated in line 10 that the opposed (Bells) "owns title and interest in the brewing innovation trademark".

Thus acknowledging the use of the words as a trademark by use of the word trademark instead of acknowledging it as a slogan.

Thus, if the words brewing innovation (despite being used with since 1985) are in fact trademarked then it does bolster Bells argument. Silly similarities like this are what most trademark disputes are all about. Doesn't matter right or wrong, it matter about what is proven legal. The only thing I ever questioned, personally, is how Bells has a right to "brewing innovation" aside from they slapped it on sticker.

Breweries are arguing this crap all the time, you just rarely hear about it until a big guy is going after a little guy (macro after micro, micro after start-up, etc...) and then everyone is quick to "stick it to the big guy".
 
And that really is the point of all this.. Bell's has used this phrase, and they want the "right, title, etc..." But they never trademarked it.. However this is, and has been, the name of a brand for some time now and Innovation is trying to lock that down.. If Innovation did their homework before coming up with a name for their business to use, and it doesn't really matter in this case whether they did or didn't, this would have never flagged, because it isn't trademarked.. At least as evidenced here
 
GilaMinumBeer said:
Perhaps I misread, it appeared to me that the document stated in line 10 that the opposed (Bells) "owns title and interest in the brewing innovation trademark".

Thus acknowledging the use of the words as a trademark by use of the word trademark instead of acknowledging it as a slogan.

Thus, if the words brewing innovation (despite being used with since 1985) are in fact trademarked then it does bolster Bells argument.

Bell's asserts in the opposition document that they started using the "trademark" brewing innovation since 1985, but they don't provide any information that states they received an official trademark.
From here, it looks like they put that in to bolster their claim, but under further scrutiny, it just looks like they trying to blow smoke.
Its just typical lawyer BS because their claim is weak.
Click to expand...
 
TrustyOlJohnson said:
Its also clear that, while the phrase "brewing innovation" has been used by Bells in the past, it has not been trademarked. How does that give Bells a valid argument to prevent Innovation from using it?? And if there is a valid argument, how does this affect the right to fight for and protect a businesses trademarks?
Click to expand...

Registration of a trademark is not a prerequisite to enforce rights under the concept of trademark dilution. Having one's trademark registered gives much stronger protection against an infringer, but it is not a requirement.
 
Jus my 2 cents, probably not worth anything, but if I were Bell's brewery, I'd march down to Innovation, have a good ol fashioned bumper sticker burning, eat crow and offer a Innovation Inspired Collaboration IPA brew on my system in Michigan. Bury the hatchet and bury it fast...
 
madscientist451 said:
Its just typical lawyer BS because their claim is weak.
Click to expand...

Except that typical BS lawyers do not use specific words without scrutiny.

For Bells lawyers to use the word trademark, I expect they have a solid legalese argument to that effect. Now matter how weak a claim we think it to be.

Regardless, nothing here warrants a boycott of either brewery.
 
GilaMinumBeer said:
You'll have to speak louder to overcome the clink of the pitchforks and the roar of the fires.
Click to expand...

You disagree with the prevailing sentiment that Bell's is in the wrong. I think we get that. Your snarky comments are quickly approaching *****ebaggery. Where or not I agree with you is a moot point.
 
Ridire said:
That is a cut and paste of the FB post that has been posted on this thread several times. If true, that's great, but Innovation has put out a public statement that basically says "Laura Bell is lying". Who to believe...?
Click to expand...

How about we believe the the business that has cultivated relationships well enough to reach 310,000 bbls a year. You can't do this by pissing off every supplier, distributor, and (quite frankly) peer in the industry.

Just a guess here but, usually the first one to run to social media for help thinks they are right far more often then they actually are.
 
A few points:

1. A business that owns intellectual property, be it trademarks, copyrights, patents, or trade secrets, has a right to enforce those rights. They can choose not to, but the choice to pursue alleged infringers is their prerogative. The fact that the alleged infringer is a small business is immaterial. It may seem like an unfair, David v. Goliath battle, but Bell's is clearly within its right to pursue this.

2. The defendant should have performed due diligence before moving forward with its use of those marks. For a modest fee, often as little as a few hundred dollars, a trademark search can be performed by a third party company to make sure it's OK to use the mark. It doesn't even require a lawyer. One needs only to Google "trademark search firms." The smaller brewery chose to go cheap and dive in without checking to see if they might be infringing.

3. The plaintiff (Bell's) needs to weigh the potential benefit of litigation versus the impact of negative publicity. Sometimes it is wiser for a plaintiff to let it go than to lose business due to controversy.

4. Companies don't launch into litigation without first contacting the alleged infringer. No doubt Bell's counsel sent a cease-and-desist letter to the other brewery. That gives the infringer a chance to avoid litigation. But who knows what the other brewery did at that point. Maybe they chose to ignore it, hoping it would "go away." Maybe they told Bell's to go pound sand. I don't know. But Bell's likely gave them a chance to stop using the slogans, and for some reason, they continued to do so. Sometimes it's wiser for a defendant to let it go than to lose a bunch of money defending in litigation.
 
GilaMinumBeer said:
Except that typical BS lawyers do not use specific words without scrutiny.


Sure they do, most lawyers (and judges) I have dealt with say whatever they want, put all kinds of crap in legal documents and tell outright lies to try to influence the court. Ethics and integrity mean absolutely nothing in the legal profession. Winning at all costs is what they are all about.

For Bells lawyers to use the word trademark, I expect they have a solid legalese argument to that effect. Now matter how weak a claim we think it to be.



You can have whatever expectations you want. I respect your opinion.


Regardless, nothing here warrants a boycott of either brewery.
Click to expand...

I disagree, Bell's is out of line. The small brewery isn't hurting them.
They need to back down or face a boycott. They can choose to be *****ebags and they can choose reverse course and leave the small brewer alone. A boycott of their products may be what it takes to for them to see the light.
 

Similar threads

JB_Brewing2
Bells loses trademark case.
Replies
2
Views
631
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

Latest posts

Back
Top