Starbucks vs Exit 6 brewpub

Amazing response from the brewery.

http://beerpulse.com/2013/12/exit-6...ds-6-check-to-starbucks-after-cd-letter-2107/

 

ha! i enjoy good sacrasm.

 

God I hope he names the beer, "F word."

 

The Starbucks-McDonalds-Marlboro honey lager sounds quenching, not to mention it cures all your cravings

 

Agreed. And according the their Facebook page it looks like they have the named the beer "The F Word"

 

Yet another reason to hate those greedy bastards. They make crappy coffee, sell it for way too much, and do their best to put every small business out of business. I thought they usually stuck to putting the local coffee shop out of business, but now they seem to be expanding.

No self respecting beer drinker should ever set foot in one of those places. And pour me one of those F Word brews while your at it.

 

Great story!

 

Yup... They don't get my money. It seems they put more effort into threatening small businesses than making their coffee good.

Their coffee is the worst.

It should be called a crapachino ...

 

I think I will drive up there this weekend and try an F Word!

 

Starbuck's just made themselves look more like the big conglomerate a-holes that they are.

And I agree. To me, their coffee tastes putrid.

 

I loved the response and most of all, the post scripts. Funny guy. For this, I hope a beer comes out named the F Word by this brewery. Enclosing $6 was equally classic.

If you're stupid enough to mistake a Starbucks sugar drink with coffee like flavor for a beer then you need to drink something else. Starbucks clearly has nothing better to do than to browse untappd. 3 check ins? How'd they even notice? Maybe this effort can be spent training their folks to stop burning the **** out of the coffee or over roasting the beans.

 

Alright, here's the ultra-bummer devil's advocate take on it. Despite the fact that this is the epitome of David vs. Goliath in company scale, protection of trademarks is a requirement of holding the trademark at all. The question I pose to the anarchists of the bunch is, what if it were your trademark? Would you leave it alone, let people use it all they want, and then lose the trademark you paid so much money for? What if the trademark violator was a large coffee company infringing on a smaller brewery's trademark? Who's side are you on then? Maybe it's the whole concept of owning trademarks at all that is so unappealing to so many. It's so capitalistic.

I agree that this particular instance is over the top and the infringement was miles under the logical radar but I'm acknowledging that there is a threshold and certainly a reason a company must protect their trademark.

 

Starbucks coffee is awful but their claim is legitimate. I'm sure that law firm is already retained to handle these issues so it's not costing anymore than they were already paying.

I agree that it's lame for Starbucks to pursue a small brewery but Exit 6 violated their IP and had a temper tantrum when ordered to stop.

 

way to use the bully bull crap tactics of a HUGE corporation to your advantage and gain some interest.

awesome job.

 

It's not unreasonable to imagine a scenario where a coffee company collaborates with a brewery to make a stout. The point is that using the trademarked name makes it sound like the product is endorsed by the owner of the trademark.

I would never assume that some little brewery was endorsed by Starbucks but that's not the point.


Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Home Brew mobile app

 

To me I gotta side with Starbucks they trademarked that stupid name and he attempted to piggy back off of it and figured he'd slip by with changing a letter.

Starbucks handled it like a corp. protecting its property and he acted like a child with his response.

 

Sounded like he was ignorant to the fact that it was trademarked in the first place. I also know Starbucks like many corporations pay a legal team to do nothing but protect their trademarks and such. I did like his response to the letter. He obviously knew he had to change the name but at least he was able to poke fun of the multi billion dollar corporation some would consider evil.

 

Right or wrong I think Jeff from Exit 6 played it very well. A small brew pub from St. Peters Mo is now being talked about on almost every news outlet. Exit 6 has been packed since the story broke, standing room only. Not bad for a $6 investment!

 

I wonder where the line is for most people. How big does a company have to get before they are labeled evil or faceless? If it's not a family owned company with 100 employees, then how many more does it take? Does the company have to be publicly traded such that a board's decisions are driven primarily by stock price impacts?

 

I agree. It reminds me of Napster when people were getting all pissy for wanting to actually profit on their music rather than allowing people to steal it for nothing.

Good on Starbucks for protecting their brand and good on the brewery guy for having a sense of humor while also realizing he can profit more from the publicity than from his beer name.

 

That's why I find Boston Beer Co. so interesting. Publically traded, production has outgrown the definition of craft beer such that they change the defintion of craft beer volumes to accommodate, yet they aren't thought of as some evil corporation like Starbucks or InBev.

 

For me it's not just about size. How they treat their employees is probably at the top of the list. For example, Costco vs Walmart. Both large corporations but one takes care of their employees one goes out of their way to make an extra buck at their employees expense.

 

Not a fan of Starbucks myself and I will say I thought the response was hilarious, but it completely ignores the fact that Starbucks bucked the odds (probably thru incredibly hard work and a lot of luck and not infringing on the IP of others) to become such a behemoth and did not do so overnight (~1970 or so actually and Im pretty sure they were a small business then and years after). As others said, if it was his trademark...

Im sure Greg Koch would have a super funny legal response to an infringement, but I am sure he would still respond. Any responsible board would demand it.

My favorite ever (having worked at a major record label) response to a supposed infringement was Napster having the temerity to send a cease and desist to The Offspring for selling Napster t-shirts at their shows (as Napster was infringing on them and every other act). Obviously that did not get very far...

 

I had to put my screen cap to preserve my 666th post:

 

In fairness, I never said Starbucks was wrong and I'm hardly an "anarchist" by any definition. But we're talking about absolute stupidity if you think a straight up cup of sugar with the hint of coffee flavor is coming out of a beer tap. Again, I never said and didn't elude that Starbucks was wrong but since anyone who expressed even mild objection was deemed an anarchist, clearly I'm wrong or something.

 

I used the word anarchist in a post directly after yours but I didn't quote you and wasn't responding directly to you. I was speaking in general terms, again playing devil's advocate in light of all the support for the little guy being bullied. Please don't take such offense.

 

As far as Starbucks goes; I am no coffee snob, but do enjoy a cup of good java when I'm sitting at home in the morning. As far as coffee in the outside world I am not very particular and have had coffee at almost every all night diner in NYC and just about every other place that my 20 years of wacky hours and jobs in the big crApple has taken me.

I would rather sit down at some joint at 3 AM and have 2 over easy, home fries, toast and a mug of joe for about the same price as some frilly over roasted Crapochino with a half gallon of butterfat floating on the top.

OMO

bosco

 

I'm new here, new to forums in general and how they operate, but am I correct that your 666th post was deleted??

 

It's not about someone being confused about coffee coming out of a beer tap. It's about protecting your trademark. If you fail to protect your trademark you can lose it.

 

First, it wasn't even spelled the same so technically he isn't infringing up Starbucks TM. You can say that he was betting on people recognizing the inferred pattern but at what point is a word a company's? If I TM the word resume can I sue anyone applying for a job when I TM'd the word resume as in to resume(start again) brewing? I mean they're spelled the same way.

Secondly, I read this somewhere else and from what I remember he didn't name the beer the offending word. Several people had checked in on untapped and said that Exit 6's beer tastes like "the F word". I might be wrong on that though.

My biggest problem with ANY conglomeration is that at the rate we're going in several years I won't be able to type this response without infringing on someone's TM.

 

Just business. They have to defend their trademark or it becomes invalid. Bad idea to name a product that similarly to a well known brand. You think you could market a Sevens Up beer with seven hop varieties in it just because it's not technically the same product? What they could have done instead of throwing a tantrum is use good business sense when choosing the name or work out a deal.

This is bad for all craft brewers.

 

The way I see it there is only so many names and words in this world before things just start to sound stupid and people shouldn't be expected to use or not use words just because some big corp. paid the govt. to "own" a word. You see this kind of thing in generic brands all the time and nobody cares. Sure maybe the brewers should have spent more time on a name for there beer, or name it something less clever and spend that time making a good brew.

 

You can't trademark just anything. There are laws that control what can be trademarked, what the trademark covers, and how it is enforced.

If you're concerned about trademark laws I'm sure there is plenty of informative and accurate information to be found via Google.

 

Starbucks made up the name. I also find highly unlikely that three random customers made up the same odd name that is only one letter off without some use by the brewery, how would they know that it was referred to as that.

 

pretty much the way I see it was He didn't inteand to speel it differantly (I do believe that as the way he spelt it would be how I would spell it ), he was not ignorant that he was infringing a trademark as he was intentially naming his beer a word that anyone would reasonably guess would belong to the company that made it up and he did play this extreamly well... maybe too well that it seems like he might have anticipated Starbuck's response and used it as he had planned

No, technically it is infringing on the TM even though it is spelt differnt. And you cannot trademark words or phrase that are in common usage so no trademarking Resumé for you (and you spelt it wrong by the way - I probably got the accent wrong as well ). Insterestingly you can apparently trademark beer styles according to the NZ IP office and now no one in NZ can make a Radler

 

I'm catching up on a few episodes of Brew Strong and today listened to their two hour Trademark Law episode. Funny thing (to me) is that the broadcast date is coincidently the same as when the Starbucks letter is dated.

It was a good episode for those who are interested in the specifics of the "why's" of a trademark dispute like this. For what it's worth to those who think Starbucks is bullying Exit 6, Jamil even said he has to ask other breweries to stop using names trademarked by Heritic Brewing Company.

http://thebrewingnetwork.com/shows/1037

 

Depends on the situation, of course. But let's say I was a regional brewery in California and came up with what I believed to be a very unique and cool name for a beer, and started using the trademark symbol on my packaging (or even went through federal registration if it was important enough, which I'm *SURE* Starbucks did).

Let's say that I then learned that some small brewery in Maine was using the same name of a beer.

Here's what I'd likely do, assuming it was a brewery worthy of respect:

1. Officially send the cease and desist letter, as part of "defending my trademark".
2. Preface the sending of the letter by calling the brewery owner in question, explaining what I'm doing, so that they don't get all butthurt when the papers are served.
3. Try to find an amicable solution where I license the mark to them under terms where they officially assert my ownership of the mark, and where they have something on their packaging or elsewhere that publicly states that their product is not affiliated with mine.
4. Depending on the situation, the license will cost a reasonable fee or may actually be free.

I feel that solution will balance the legal requirements to defend my mark with the ethos of the craft beer market.

Now, if it's a brewery of a-holes, or if it's not being used by a brewery, or there's something else about the situation where I feel that licensing the mark will be disadvantageous to me, then it'll just be the cease-and-desist, rather than playing nice.

(And for the record, yes, I am an anarchist. But that's a different discussion!)

 

I know of 2 breweries that have collaborated with coffee companies in my area. Bent Paddle brewing has a Cold-Press Black Ale brewed with Duluth Brewing Co. coffee and Sand Creek Brewing did a stout for The Coffee Grounds in Eau Claire, WI they call In-House Stout.

 

Ten years ago I would have been all up in arms over this. Now, the story just reminds me of all the reasons I don't want to turn pro.

 

Being asked to stop using a another businesses trade mark is all the reasons you don't want to go pro?