Bells suing a small brewer

[bob1852]

If Bell's facebook post is true, then they should be calling for retractions from more than one reputable newspaper.

The problem is no one reads the retractions in small print on page 9 for a story that ran on page 1 several days ago.

 

[ArkotRamathorn]

And this being a valid legal threat to be concerned about, a co-existence agreement sounds like the perfect remedy. Which is why I continue to say that Bell's version of events sounds much more plausible than anything I've read in the media.

So if a co-exitence agreement if met between the two parties, what happens if a third party infringes on the "Innovation" brand. Do you add another party to the co-existence agreement, what if the 3rd party doesn't agree to it? Who is entitled to the damages when the 3rd party has to pony up the 10,000 per infringement? Do the two parties in the co-existence agreement have to split the "winnings"?

I guess I see a business thats trying to have their brand trademarked, being asked to share their name/brand/trademark with another company, who has not trademarked the particular branding scheme. I feel no sympathy in this case for Bell's. If I was Innovation Brewing I wouldn't enter the co-existence agreement either and if there was a legal basis to sue Bell's for trademark infringement after the trademark is granted, I would do the same thing as Innovation Brewing and ask for a sum of money to settle out of court and agree not to sure them for infringement at a later date.

 

[Owly055]

Same educational background and same conclusion here. I've seen this sort of thing play out before and have been involved in name/trademark disputes in the past. It's rarely as simple as most people believe.

The fact is that the slogan "inspired innovation" far predates the existence of Innovation Brewing. The probability that any court would award a judgment to Innovation Brewing for Bell's use of the slogan "Inspired Innovation" is beyond remote. Rather than trying to block Innovation Brewing's attempt to copyright their name, perhaps Bells should file a copyright of their own on the slogan "inspired innovation" with regard to brewing. They can clearly show the use of the slogan for a number of years.


H.W.

 

[DrankGoodness]

The problem is no one reads the retractions in small print on page 9 for a story that ran on page 1 several days ago.

we wouldn't be talking about this if Bells had a copy of a retraction on their facebook page.

 

[TrustyOlJohnson]

Bell's takes on an oil company

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/07/26/new-beer-lawsuit-could-spell-trouble-for-keystone-xl-pipeline/

 

[hunter_le five]

Welcome to the Internet: Quick to outrage, Slow to understand.

 

[TrustyOlJohnson]

I have a new name for Ball's next beer "Litigious Dick Ale"... Like what I did there? (hint I dont want to get sued too)

 

[lowtones84]

Maybe we should actually have facts instead of conjecture and probability before we formulate strong opinions and drag the names of any brewing company through the mud...

 

[TrustyOlJohnson]

The fact is that the slogan "inspired innovation" far predates the existence of Innovation Brewing. The probability that any court would award a judgment to Innovation Brewing for Bell's use of the slogan "Inspired Innovation" is beyond remote. Rather than trying to block Innovation Brewing's attempt to copyright their name, perhaps Bells should file a copyright of their own on the slogan "inspired innovation" with regard to brewing. They can clearly show the use of the slogan for a number of years.





H.W.

Exactly

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

Bell's takes on an oil company

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/07/26/new-beer-lawsuit-could-spell-trouble-for-keystone-xl-pipeline/

to protect the environment.

 

[JonM]

I have seen trademark infringement suits against little immigrant mom and pop bodegas because they had a knockoff Louis Vuitton purse on a shelf. I have seen U.S. Courts of Appeals say "Sorry, I know this is going to bankrupt you and you are going to have to return to Cambodia, but the law is the law, and trademarks are enforced extremely vigorously."

Business owners don't screw around with potential trademark issues. They don't say "Eh, the chances of getting sued and losing are pretty remote." They're not, and the consequences are huge.

 

[Ridire]

I have seen trademark infringement suits against little immigrant mom and pop bodegas because they had a knockoff Louis Vuitton purse on a shelf. I have seen U.S. Courts of Appeals say "Sorry, I know this is going to bankrupt you and you are going to have to return to Cambodia, but the law is the law, and trademarks are enforced extremely vigorously."

Business owners don't screw around with potential trademark issues. They don't say "Eh, the chances of getting sued and losing are pretty remote." They're not, and the consequences are huge.

This.

 

[wardens355]

If Bell's facebook post is true, then they should be calling for retractions from more than one reputable newspaper.

Are there really any reputable news sources anymore? I believe the current mantra is "Report first, get actual story later."

 

[bob1852]

"...but the law is the law, and trademarks are enforced extremely vigorously."

And they should be.

 

[Ridire]

to protect the environment.

That is what big, evil "corporations" do...

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

we wouldn't be talking about this if Bells had a copy of a retraction on their facebook page.

Why would they do that?

 

[JonM]

Better than a retraction from the Detroit Free Press is to get into the Times, the Wall Street Journal, 60 minutes, etc. I bet that's in the works right now.

 

[TrustyOlJohnson]

Maybe Bell's is making a smart legal move here, maybe not. I enjoy alot of IPA's. Two Hearted makes me want to puke. Bell's should prob be working on correcting that.

 

[baron]

Yea -- Bell's Brewery also made Northern Brewer change their clone kit name (Three Hearted Ale). It is now Dead Ringer.

 

[TrustyOlJohnson]

Yea -- Bell's Brewery also made Northern Brewer change their clone kit name (Three Hearted Ale). It is now Dead Ringer.

Is anyone but me seeing a pattern here...? Are all breweries behaving this way?

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

Maybe Bell's is making a smart legal move here, maybe not. I enjoy alot of IPA's. Two Hearted makes me want to puke. Bell's should prob be working on correcting that.

I find Two Hearted more palatable than a Plinian Dogfish Celebration.

 

[TrustyOlJohnson]

I find Two Hearted more palatable than a Plinian Dogfish Celebration.

Thanks for the heads up. I wont buy that either

 

[bob1852]

Are all breweries behaving this way?

If not, they should be. Business is business. Law is law.

 

[Ridire]

I find Two Hearted more palatable than a Plinian Dogfish Celebration.

I personally think Two Hearted is better than anything Dogfish Head puts out. I like DFH, but not as good as the Bell's IPA's in my opinion.

But the comment just shows that no matter what the realities are here, John is going to crucify Bell's because he does not like them.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

I personally think Two Hearted is better than anything Dogfish Head puts out. I like DFH, but not as good as the Bell's IPA's in my opinion.

But the comment just shows that no matter what the realities are here, John is going to crucify Bell's because he does not like them.

Ding!

 

[TrustyOlJohnson]

I personally think Two Hearted is better than anything Dogfish Head puts out. I like DFH, but not as good as the Bell's IPA's in my opinion.



But the comment just shows that no matter what the realities are here, John is going to crucify Bell's because he does not like them.

Sorry Ridire, its not that simple. I dont like their IPA, their other beers are neither inspiring or innovative. Ive tried everything that Im aware of that they have brewed and had been put on a list in front of me. They are common. They're ok. Problem is, Bell's obviously has a long history of trying to improve their product in the courtroom. Maybe they should try to do it in the brewery. I have no dog in this fight, no skin in this game. Bell's however, is the one losing customers and also losing in the public court of opinion. And when the public customers buy your products and pay your bills, its better to "lose a battle to win a war". As a wise man I know once said "Those that can, do. Those that cant, sue."

 

[baron]

And then on the complete opposite of the spectrum -- you have Vinnie Cilurzo of Russian River publishing his recipe for the #1 voted beer in the country -- Pliny the Elder.

 

[Ridire]

Sorry Ridire, its not that simple. I dont like their IPA, their other beers are neither inspiring or innovative. Ive tried everything that Im aware of that they have brewed and had been put on a list in front of me. They are common. They're ok. Problem is, Bell's obviously has a long history of trying to improve their product in the courtroom. Maybe they should try to do it in the brewery. I have no dog in this fight, no skin in this game. Bell's however, is the one losing customers and also losing in the public court of opinion. And when the public customers buy your products and pay your bills, its better to "lose a battle to win a war". As a wise man I know once said "Those that can, do. Those that cant, sue."

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but your comments here really scream "I have a personal issue with Bell's and don't care what the facts are". But I'll leave it at a difference of opinion, both as to the business end of things, and as to the beers (which I think are better, from top to bottom, than any brewery out there).

 

[Ridire]

And then on the complete opposite of the spectrum -- you have Vinnie Cilurzo of Russian River publishing his recipe for the #1 voted beer in the country -- Pliny the Elder.

Bell's has published the recipe for Two Hearted Ale...I have a copy of it somewhere. Their problem is with brand protection, not with guarding the secret recipe.

 

[JonM]

Sorry Ridire, its not that simple. I dont like their IPA, their other beers are neither inspiring or innovative. Ive tried everything that Im aware of that they have brewed and had been put on a list in front of me. They are common. They're ok. Problem is, Bell's obviously has a long history of trying to improve their product in the courtroom. Maybe they should try to do it in the brewery. I have no dog in this fight, no skin in this game. Bell's however, is the one losing customers and also losing in the public court of opinion. And when the public customers buy your products and pay your bills, its better to "lose a battle to win a war". As a wise man I know once said "Those that can, do. Those that cant, sue."

What if it played out like this:

Bell's approaches Innovation in a collegial and professional way and says, "let's figure out a way that you can have and protect your trademark, and we can continue to use our bumper stickers without fear of you suing us." Then Innovation says, "No. Moreover, I'll cost you X to hire lawyers and defend yourself, it'll cost you Y in public opinion costs to fight this, and Z if we DO sue you after we get our trademark. So work together? No. Give me a million dollars and we won't sue you."

If that's the story, are you still on Innovation's side?

 

[baron]

Bell's has published the recipe for Two Hearted Ale...I have a copy of it somewhere. Their problem isn't with brand protection, not with guarding the secret recipe.

Did not know that.
+1 to Bell's Brewery!

 

[Ridire]

Did not know that.
+1 to Bell's Brewery!

Damn you. You quoted before I fixed my typo.

 

[elerten]

They are in fact
1. Not suing the smaller brewery. They've asked them to not trademark the name innovation. When they were turned down they filed a sort of grievance with the federal trademark place to deny their application to use innovation as a protected name of a business.
2. From what I read bells reached out to the place and asked them not to trademark it so they could both still use the name/slogan at the same time.
3. If Innovation was granted the trademark, they could go after bells for using their name in a slogan.

I think maybe getting all the facts before you come on here and crucify a business that has done some pretty great stuff for local brewing, and the local home brew community. I pay less at their general store for hops/yeast/malt then the internet and bulk prices. Not to mention the yearly competition they put on and give away a couple thousand gallons of wort to brew with.

 

[mcartt11]

What if it played out like this:

Bell's approaches Innovation in a collegial and professional way and says, "let's figure out a way that you can have and protect your trademark, and we can continue to use our bumper stickers without fear of you suing us." Then Innovation says, "No. Moreover, I'll cost you X to hire lawyers and defend yourself, it'll cost you Y in public opinion costs to fight this, and Z if we DO sue you after we get our trademark. So work together? No. Give me a million dollars and we won't sue you."

If that's the story, are you still on Innovation's side?

As much as I hate to say it, I feel like this may be closer to the truth.

 

[brewprint]

This was on Bell's Facebook page today:

This is all that needs to be said.

I side with Bells. Although I hadn't really chosen sides...the smaller brewer is in the wrong.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

They are in fact
1. Not suing the smaller brewery. They've asked them to not trademark the name innovation. When they were turned down they filed a sort of grievance with the federal trademark place to deny their application to use innovation as a protected name of a business.
2. From what I read bells reached out to the place and asked them not to trademark it so they could both still use the name/slogan at the same time.
3. If Innovation was granted the trademark, they could go after bells for using their name in a slogan.

I think maybe getting all the facts before you come on here and crucify a business that has done some pretty great stuff for local brewing, and the local home brew community. I pay less at their general store for hops/yeast/malt then the internet and bulk prices. Not to mention the yearly competition they put on and give away a couple thousand gallons of wort to brew with.

But Larry Bell is a dick! And people here want castration.

 

[ArkotRamathorn]

What if it played out like this:

Bell's approaches Innovation in a collegial and professional way and says, "let's figure out a way that you can have and protect your trademark, and we can continue to use our bumper stickers without fear of you suing us." Then Innovation says, "No. Moreover, I'll cost you X to hire lawyers and defend yourself, it'll cost you Y in public opinion costs to fight this, and Z if we DO sue you after we get our trademark. So work together? No. Give me a million dollars and we won't sue you."

If that's the story, are you still on Innovation's side?

Yes, because thats just as much their right if they are granted the trademark. Just as much it would be Bell's right to sue a brewery that uses bells in their logo. If Bell's and the brewery agreed on a settlement outside of court for X amount of dollars, thats their business to settle, Bell's is in the right to ask for an out of court settlement, and the other business would be in the right to offer an out of court settlement.

Two Hearted was the first IPA I tried and really tried digging into the experience of an IPA and tried to enjoy. I like Two Hearted, I've also brewed a Hopslam clone and tried the commercial version and its pretty tasty.

If Innovation Brewing is granted the trademark, by our logic here it would be perfectly within their rights to sue Bell's for infringement. Do I think its completely ridiculous when its just a bumper sticker/t-shirt slogan that could not possibly be construed by anyone with a brain as being the same product/beer/brewery? Yes, I think its stupid. But if Bell's wants to protect themselves, settling out of court to me seems like the better option here. Define "exorbitant" amount of money. Did Innovation ask for 10 million in damages? Or did they ask for a million? Right now I'm betting that Innovation is delaying for time for the trademark application to go through and grant them the trademark so they can bring an actual case against Bell's and force them to settle out of court.

If Innovation picked their name purely to eventually sue Bell's, yeah, I wouldn't be on their side anymore. But I highly doubt they saw these bumper stickers, though "I'm gonna make a brewery, then sue Bells".

TLDR; I am on Innovation's side on this regardless of my like/dislike of Bell's.

 

[elerten]

But Larry Bell is a dick! And people here want castration.

Do you know any successful business owners that aren't dicks.

 

[frettfreak]

I dunno. I was initially outraged at bells... the more i read the more it becomes fuzzy. Kinda sounds like innovation could be ******** about it all. However, Bells is kinda ridiculous that they thing one word on their stupid ass bumperstickers used in the name of a brewery will effect them in ANY WAY.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

Yes, because thats just as much their right if they are granted the trademark. Just as much it would be Bell's right to sue a brewery that uses bells in their logo. If Bell's and the brewery agreed on a settlement outside of court for X amount of dollars, thats their business to settle, Bell's is in the right to ask for an out of court settlement, and the other business would be in the right to offer an out of court settlement.

Two Hearted was the first IPA I tried and really tried digging into the experience of an IPA and tried to enjoy. I like Two Hearted, I've also brewed a Hopslam clone and tried the commercial version and its pretty tasty.

If Innovation Brewing is granted the trademark, by our logic here it would be perfectly within their rights to sue Bell's for infringement. Do I think its completely ridiculous when its just a bumper sticker/t-shirt slogan that could not possibly be construed by anyone with a brain as being the same product/beer/brewery? Yes, I think its stupid. But if Bell's wants to protect themselves, settling out of court to me seems like the better option here. Define "exorbitant" amount of money. Did Innovation ask for 10 million in damages? Or did they ask for a million? Right now I'm betting that Innovation is delaying for time for the trademark application to go through and grant them the trademark so they can bring an actual case against Bell's and force them to settle out of court.

If Innovation picked their name purely to eventually sue Bell's, yeah, I wouldn't be on their side anymore. But I highly doubt they saw these bumper stickers, though "I'm gonna make a brewery, then sue Bells".

TLDR; I am on Innovation's side on this regardless of my like/dislike of Bell's.

More likely that someone within the Bells institution caught wind of Innovations want for trademark and thought it reasonable to attempt to protect themselves BEFORE legal recourse is warranted. And then someone got innovative in considering a bankroll rather than support a logical collaboration. And then Bell prolly pee'd on a bale of hops meant to ship to Innovation brewing.