Bells suing a small brewer

[kombat]

I was making a delivery at his front door, he didn't just walk up from out of nowhere, he had to sign for the shipment.

Right, but was there any other dialog, or did you just hand him the clipboard, and out of nowhere, he just blurted out, "I'm the boss, I don't have to help?" Clearly, you're leaving some things out, but whatever, you were there, I wasn't, you clearly have your opinion of him and I don't expect you to change that based on the ramblings of an anonymous Internet commenter. As you told it, it sounds extremely implausible to me, but whatever.

If I was just starting out

You said you delivered to him in the "late eighties," but they were founded in 1983. So I wouldn't say they were "just starting out"; it sounds like they'd been open for at least a few years already.

with only a few employees I would be right there helping.

Initially, sure, but several years in? Wouldn't an owner's time be better spend expanding the brand awareness, distribution, and tap presence in local watering holes? And how do you know he only had 3 employees? Maybe it was a peculiar sense of humour? Maybe he was tired from cleaning out the mash tun and stacking kegs earlier in the day, before you got there?

I'm just saying the story - as you told it - doesn't pass the smell test. Either he was (is?) a colossal ******, or you've got some kind of axe to grind with him, or (more likely) didn't "get" his dry/deadpan sense of humour.

 

[agrazela]

Springsteen has been "The Boss" since the late 60's. He should totally sue Mr. Bell for trademark infringement for saying, "I'm the boss."

 

[Homercidal]

I'm sure he said, "Like a Boss!"

 

[Highside]

From Innovations FB page...

"We have received many requests for an update regarding the TM dispute with Bell's. Though we have made offers to settle, none have been accepted and we are still heading to trial. Bell's has filed a motion to amend their opposition with a whole new argument that contradicts their whole case up to this point. More recently, they have even gone so far as to file a motion to compel our presence at a second deposition, this time in Michigan.

For anyone who would like to keep up with what's going on, our response to their motion to amend is here, and contains details and some history of the case. (It will be on the left side of the split screen. If you right click on the document it can be saved and viewed as a regular pdf):

http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v…
On the right are links to all documents regarding this case, as they are all publicly available on the USPTO website. Thank you all for your continued support. We love you."

 

[xandersaml]

From Innovations FB page...

"We have received many requests for an update regarding the TM dispute with Bell's. Though we have made offers to settle, none have been accepted and we are still heading to trial. Bell's has filed a motion to amend their opposition with a whole new argument that contradicts their whole case up to this point. More recently, they have even gone so far as to file a motion to compel our presence at a second deposition, this time in Michigan.

For anyone who would like to keep up with what's going on, our response to their motion to amend is here, and contains details and some history of the case. (It will be on the left side of the split screen. If you right click on the document it can be saved and viewed as a regular pdf):

http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v…
On the right are links to all documents regarding this case, as they are all publicly available on the USPTO website. Thank you all for your continued support. We love you."

Link doesn't work for me.

 

[hunter_le five]

Link doesn't work for me.

Me neither.

JBWEB000065: HTTP Status 404 - /ttabvue/v%E2%80%A6

JBWEB000309: type JBWEB000067: Status report

JBWEB000068: message /ttabvue/v%E2%80%A6

JBWEB000069: description JBWEB000124: The requested resource is not available.

JBoss Web/7.2.0.Final-redhat-2

It looks like the URL kinda trails off there at the end....

 

[mbbransc]

See if this works.

 

[Weezy]

So Bell's original claim was that 'innovation brewing' was literally the same thing as 'inspired brewing' which they've registered. They amended the complaint later to argue the 'brewing innovation since 1985' point. It looks like the report by an examining attorney for the board is leaning towards that initial claim being deficient. Hence why it was amended. IB appears to be arguing that Bell's is misleading the board and since the initial claim is no longer bring argued, the petition should be dropped.

Some interesting analysis in there concerned how the use of the term innovation in the brewing industry os so pervasive, that this dilution lessens the strength of any single claim.