Here's the email I just sent Larry Bell:
Mr. Bell,
I was very disappointed to hear of your decision to sue Innovation brewing just because of a bumper sticker. You produced 310,000 barrels of beer last year, are in 18 states, and are very well respected in the craft beer community. I say community because that is what it used to be, but actions like this are sickening and cheapen the entire experience for everyone. In contrast, Innovation made only 500 barrels last year and are not available outside of North Carolina. Your decision to sue them because their BREWERY NAME uses one word from a bumper sticker you give away for free will likely put them out of business as the owners go broke fighting this useless legal battle. There is no way you can come out of this looking like anything other than a bully. Now you have sunk to the level of Tony Magee at Lagunitas, and I doubt that is how you want to be perceived. I hope that you see reason and stop this inane lawsuit. Until then, I have certainly had my last Bell's beer, and I will be spreading the word.
I disagree, Bell's is out of line. The small brewery isn't hurting them.
See what happens, Larry? See what happens when you fck a stranger in the @ss?
. As for an unregistered word used in a marketing slogan (see bottling innovation since 1985), the protection is almost non-existent. Think of how many words are used in a brewerys lifetime in a marketing statement. There are probably thousands, over 30 years. If a brewery feels that it is part of its brand, it would have protected it. This is especially true when the brewery is adept at filing for trademarks, such as Bell's. That was not the case here. Like Bell's would do, we searched far and wide before selecting a brand name. And we are asking for the same protection that they have been afforded 20+ times.
In the early days of this dispute, when we were asked what our brand was worth, we told them a lot. We did not expect that to be used against us as proposing a settlement figure. Our brand was not for sale, and it's not for sale now. We fully believe we can come to an agreement with Bell's, and we will never ask them for compensation. An agreement would let both breweries use our existing brands going forward, because consumers are not likely to be confused.
Bells, we just don't think you should have filed it. We believe that it lacks merit, and the impact has been an unfortunate, costly, and lengthy heartache for all. Lets settle it. We look forward to hearing your thoughts on our most recent coexistence agreement and truly look forward to a resolution."
I can see Bell's point. They should have trademarked it if they felt so strongly about it, but didn't.
Larry Bell messaged me on facebook due to the fact that I created a "Larry Bell is a real dick" t-shirt. End result, I told him I wouldn't print the t-shirts but still called him a dick, told him im boycotting bells until this is settled and told him to let me know when he wants me to come brew a beer with him when this blows over.
Are you serious, Clark?
I wanna see the shirt. Showing it here wouldn't be "printing" it.
What a cute response. Perhaps you should avoid the reply button for a bit since a good portion of this thread alongside various social media outlets exhibit similar sentiments from people who seem to feel the same and clearly that grinds your gears.Am I the only one that heard sad violin music while reading this? Give me a break man. Move out of daddy's basement and learn how the business world works.
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.
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?
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.
Google common law trademarks. You will find it is not just blowing smoke.
Using it in business can grant them what is called a common law trademark. You do not have to register a trademark to own it. See the New Belgium vs Oasis action. The problem is you need to get a declaratory judgement to actually own it. It gets complicated but that would allow Bell's to actually sue over an infringement. In this case Bell's could have filed for that or even a trademark infringement lawsuit. Both of these would have been a much more expensive problem for Innovation. At this point if you feel that your possible common law trademark is being threatened you file an objection as the cheapest way to protect yourself. The bottom line is probably that Bell's registered trademark "inspired brewing" is a hard sell, but I will add not impossible. The claim of a common law trademark on bottling innovation is a pretty strong case. Not hard to convince me that Innovation Brewing and Bottling Innovation is confusing. Again not a slam dunk, but certainly a reasonable argument. Every new brewery should be aware of these problems. A local brewery being opened by a friend of mine has had to change it's name 3 times. Money was spent branding. The difference is my friend put on his big boy pants and realized that avoiding these problems is more important than a stupid fight. He never asked or received any money. He was very frustrated , but never blamed the other breweries.
Using it in business can grant them what is called a common law trademark. You do not have to register a trademark to own it. See the New Belgium vs Oasis action. The problem is you need to get a declaratory judgement to actually own it. It gets complicated but that would allow Bell's to actually sue over an infringement. In this case Bell's could have filed for that or even a trademark infringement lawsuit. Both of these would have been a much more expensive problem for Innovation. At this point if you feel that your possible common law trademark is being threatened you file an objection as the cheapest way to protect yourself. The bottom line is probably that Bell's registered trademark "inspired brewing" is a hard sell, but I will add not impossible. The claim of a common law trademark on bottling innovation is a pretty strong case. Not hard to convince me that Innovation Brewing and Bottling Innovation is confusing. Again not a slam dunk, but certainly a reasonable argument. Every new brewery should be aware of these problems. A local brewery being opened by a friend of mine has had to change it's name 3 times. Money was spent branding. The difference is my friend put on his big boy pants and realized that avoiding these problems is more important than a stupid fight. He never asked or received any money. He was very frustrated , but never blamed the other breweries.
Does this mean I'll have to start calling my bell end something else?
Enter your email address to join: