- Joined
- Jun 2, 2008
- Messages
- 64,951
- Reaction score
- 16,517
Innovation is doing an all-Simcoe ale?
Bells suing a small brewer
- Thread starter Homercidal
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:
Innovation is doing an all-Simcoe ale?
ArkotRamathorn
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 1,302
- Reaction score
- 317
There is one other question to aks yourself if you are on Bell's side.
If you were the owner of Innovation, what would you do in this situation? You had no idea there would be this trademark infringement issue that would allow you to sue Bells. Bell's asks you to sign an agreement of co-existence, but you see a chance to fund your brewery for the next couple years, protect your job, protect the jobs of the people of your brewery. Are you saying you wouldn't tell them to stuff it and if they don't want to be sued to pony up? I would, in a heart beat, if I thought I had a leg to stand on. I wouldn't want to put my brand at risk in the future if I had a unique trademark and brand and I am trying to build a successful business.
Why wouldn't Innovation Brewing ask for a settlement?
If you were the owner of Innovation, what would you do in this situation? You had no idea there would be this trademark infringement issue that would allow you to sue Bells. Bell's asks you to sign an agreement of co-existence, but you see a chance to fund your brewery for the next couple years, protect your job, protect the jobs of the people of your brewery. Are you saying you wouldn't tell them to stuff it and if they don't want to be sued to pony up? I would, in a heart beat, if I thought I had a leg to stand on. I wouldn't want to put my brand at risk in the future if I had a unique trademark and brand and I am trying to build a successful business.
Why wouldn't Innovation Brewing ask for a settlement?
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2008
- Messages
- 65,431
- Reaction score
- 10,793
Do you know any successful business owners that aren't dicks.
Several.
hunter_le five
Sheriff Underscore
Don't forget to buy the Misguided Outrage T-Shirt!
Show your friends, family, and coworkers how readily you will jump on a bandwagon about which you know very little!
I would sign the co-existence agreement (assuming it wasn't crazy...and I don't think anyone knows what was in it). But, I have read a comment from the attorney for the NC brewer that "the agreement would have prevented Innovation from expanding outside of North Carolina". If Bell's was truly trying force BS provisions like that on Innovation, then my attitude changes.
I'm not 100% on Bell's side, by the way, just find myself defending them in this environment of anti-Bell's with no, or little information. Nobody here knows what Bell's demands were, or how reasonable Innovations' refusal of those terms are. If you claim you do, you are either lying or you are an employee of one of the breweries who came here to spread propaganda.
mcartt11
Well-Known Member
So, can someone with some legal knowledge help me understand something. I am assuming that Bell's is trying to protect themselves in case they want to keep making bumper stickers, t-shirts, etc. with the slogan that uses innovation and not get sued. They can't be sued over things they have already created that contain the slogan though correct?
There have been a few posts that made it sound like once Innovation gets the trademark they could go after Bell's for these items that used the slogan years in the past. If that is the case, I need to go out and find some slogans from some big companies that were ever trademarked and start up a company that uses a part of the slogan as its name.
There have been a few posts that made it sound like once Innovation gets the trademark they could go after Bell's for these items that used the slogan years in the past. If that is the case, I need to go out and find some slogans from some big companies that were ever trademarked and start up a company that uses a part of the slogan as its name.
While I'm not on Innovation's side (you may not believe that, but Im not), lets step back and look at how this would play out. The profits that Innovation is making (as a 300 bbl brewery/not much yet) puts fighting for the right to keep their name (kinda a big deal financially)(which Bell's is trying to prevent) (estimated at $40-$50k per side) is only worth it jus for the right to keep their name. The perspective being created here (and I haven't yet seen it on other forums or articles/but it still might be there) is that Innovation is trying to angle this to make Bells pay out. If Innovation is doing that, its a mistake. As stated before, an agreement could have solved this, but its clear that Bells wants to prevent Innovation from using the word as their name. If Innovation receives the right to use their name, they have no recourse, as far as anyone here has given an opinion or has been indicated elsewhere, to sue Bells for past use of a bumper sticker. Bells could, and we know from their past behavior will wear them down in court over time and Innovation would be done. Innovation can't fight that fight and win.
In the above scenario, all of which are possible, it would've been wise is Innovation said no, to simply say, ok, were gonna throw out the $1000 worth of stickers we have....
Maybe Im wrong, maybe this will play out being exactly as you state, and if so, I will personally come on here and say I was wrong. Lesson learned.
I meet and talk with them every day...some of the nicest people in the world.
If that was the case and I was in Innovation's shoes, then I wouldn't ride the "poor little me, I don't get no respect, Larry's picking on me" media tidal wave.
kombat
Well-Known Member
"What's that? You've been using the word "Innovation" on some bumper stickers? Huh, we never noticed that, I've never seen that bumper sticker. No worries, let's come up with a co-existence agreement that will let you keep making those bumper stickers. And since we've already got the attention of social media, let's make lemonade out of these lemons. What would you say to a collaboration brew? We'll call it "Innobell Patriot Pale Ale." You guys come up with the grain bill, we'll come up with a hop schedule, we'll do a limited release around, say, Memorial Day. You can play it off as an experienced, veteran craft brewer welcoming an exciting newcomer to the market. Win-win."
Why settle for a couple of years when you can get a permanent boost in profile and the goodwill of the homebrewing and craft beer enthusiast communities?
BBQB
Well-Known Member
I just bought a 6er of two hearted
agrazela
Well-Known Member
I'm gonna start "Beechwood Aged Cold Filtered Tastes Great Less Filling Brewing Co."
Only seeing Bells' side of the story here. And I agree, what does "exorbitant amount of money" mean? If Bell's thinks they are in the right, $1 might be "exorbitant."
In that tweet Bell's admits asking Innovation not to do something they have every legal right to do, which is try to get a trademark--so of course there are "lawyers involved." Is Bell's prepared to let others freely use their legally acquired trademarks?
IMO, pending additional info, Bell's is still the "bad guy" here.
But man, do I love their brew :smack:
drainbamage
Keep HBT weird.
If Innovation really felt they had a leg to stand on, why not make a formal legal challenge to Bell's right off the bat? Quietly making whatever demands they (allegedly) made and then letting Bell's be the first to take matters into more open channels makes it look as if Innovation was trying to pull something off on the sly.
I'm still withholding judgment, but right now the Bell's FB post seems a lot more plausible of a story.
tnance1337
Active Member
seefish
Well-Known Member
One of these days people are going to realize that breweries, at least ones as large as Bells, are companies just like any other and live in the *****y world that is corporate business.
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2008
- Messages
- 65,431
- Reaction score
- 10,793
And then they will be bought out by AB Inbev and the world will be flat again.
ArkotRamathorn
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 1,302
- Reaction score
- 317
Are you suggesting the world was round at one point in time?
HERETIC! BLASPHEMY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2008
- Messages
- 65,431
- Reaction score
- 10,793
HANG HIM! Burn him! A stake through the heart ( thasa big b!tch), take his wallet!
frettfreak
Well-Known Member
U are what's wrong with America. This is why people get sued for stupid ass reasons. Take the high road man. Geez. They wouldn't because it's the RIGHT thing to do. Now we don't know all the details so maybe they are both asking for ridiculous concessions but as a person who started out on innovation side... I am moving to bells the more I read.
frettfreak
Well-Known Member
U are what's wrong with America. This is why people get sued for stupid ass reasons. Take the high road man. Geez. They wouldn't because it's the RIGHT thing to do. Bells has been around a long time. A lot longer than innovation. Now we don't know all the details so maybe they are both asking for ridiculous concessions but as a person who started out on innovation side... I am moving to bells the more I read. Still, this whole thing is ridiculous.
From Innovation's facebook...
"To Our Wonderful Craft Beer Community:
We felt it was important to get our story out to the media because this is an important matter for the craft beer industry. We did not intend (nor do we want to) have a social media battle with Bell's, but because of allegations posted on Bell’s Brewery’s Facebook page we now have to defend ourselves. Settlement discussions are protected communications that are not to be disclosed publicly, so out of respect to Bell’s Brewery’s rights we would never have disclosed them. Furthermore, Mr. Bell pointedly stated that he would not “play this out on social media” – and so we again respected his wishes by keeping the details to ourselves. Now, it appears they changed their mind.
We are planning to deliver a full statement of the facts and events that have brought us to this point. Until then, we feel it necessary to respond to Ms. Bell’s enumerated allegations. Thank you for continuing to support and believe in us. You keep us going through this difficult time.
1. Yes, this is a TM proceeding and not a lawsuit, although it is like a lawsuit, requiring legal representation, being personally deposed, and including a trial. They are asking us to withdraw our federal trademark application for our brand name.
2. We do not believe that any human on earth would confuse Innovation Brewing with Bell’s Brewery, despite their slogans.
3. Laura Bell did contact me at 7:00 pm the night before their opposition filing was due. They had already hired attorneys to represent them and file for their extension to file the opposition. We had not hired an attorney. After she advised us that she would “let us” keep using the name in NC only, and never expand beyond it, she said that we had until the next day at 5:00 PM to respond. That is 22 hours to find an attorney and decide on the future of our business. That was the one and only attempt Ms. Bell made to contact me. From there their attorneys took over.
4. Not a single co-existence agreement has ever been presented to us by Bell's. In fact it was we who submitted a written co-existence agreement – subsequently declined by Bell’s. The only monetary compensation they have ever offered us was $2,500 which was to cover the inconvenience of being forced to abandon our trademark and go register a different one. The “legal fees”, as Ms. Bell puts it, brought on by their legal action against us, may exceed $50,000. We did not feel like being bought off.
5. This matter was before the TM office one day after she began talking to us. No offer has ever been presented to us other than the offer to limit our business to NC or take $2,500 to start over and build a new brand. We believe in our business, so those are not really offers at all.
6. In regards to Laura Bell stating "we hope to resolve this as swiftly as the system will allow" we suggested the accelerated trademark opposition process that would have brought this to a legal end much sooner and with far less expense, but Bell's denied it.
You great people don’t deserve to be peppered with sides of the story. So we will give you a full account of the facts so you can decide for yourself. We are good people and we know we have your support. Stay tuned.
-Chip and Nicole"
"To Our Wonderful Craft Beer Community:
We felt it was important to get our story out to the media because this is an important matter for the craft beer industry. We did not intend (nor do we want to) have a social media battle with Bell's, but because of allegations posted on Bell’s Brewery’s Facebook page we now have to defend ourselves. Settlement discussions are protected communications that are not to be disclosed publicly, so out of respect to Bell’s Brewery’s rights we would never have disclosed them. Furthermore, Mr. Bell pointedly stated that he would not “play this out on social media” – and so we again respected his wishes by keeping the details to ourselves. Now, it appears they changed their mind.
We are planning to deliver a full statement of the facts and events that have brought us to this point. Until then, we feel it necessary to respond to Ms. Bell’s enumerated allegations. Thank you for continuing to support and believe in us. You keep us going through this difficult time.
1. Yes, this is a TM proceeding and not a lawsuit, although it is like a lawsuit, requiring legal representation, being personally deposed, and including a trial. They are asking us to withdraw our federal trademark application for our brand name.
2. We do not believe that any human on earth would confuse Innovation Brewing with Bell’s Brewery, despite their slogans.
3. Laura Bell did contact me at 7:00 pm the night before their opposition filing was due. They had already hired attorneys to represent them and file for their extension to file the opposition. We had not hired an attorney. After she advised us that she would “let us” keep using the name in NC only, and never expand beyond it, she said that we had until the next day at 5:00 PM to respond. That is 22 hours to find an attorney and decide on the future of our business. That was the one and only attempt Ms. Bell made to contact me. From there their attorneys took over.
4. Not a single co-existence agreement has ever been presented to us by Bell's. In fact it was we who submitted a written co-existence agreement – subsequently declined by Bell’s. The only monetary compensation they have ever offered us was $2,500 which was to cover the inconvenience of being forced to abandon our trademark and go register a different one. The “legal fees”, as Ms. Bell puts it, brought on by their legal action against us, may exceed $50,000. We did not feel like being bought off.
5. This matter was before the TM office one day after she began talking to us. No offer has ever been presented to us other than the offer to limit our business to NC or take $2,500 to start over and build a new brand. We believe in our business, so those are not really offers at all.
6. In regards to Laura Bell stating "we hope to resolve this as swiftly as the system will allow" we suggested the accelerated trademark opposition process that would have brought this to a legal end much sooner and with far less expense, but Bell's denied it.
You great people don’t deserve to be peppered with sides of the story. So we will give you a full account of the facts so you can decide for yourself. We are good people and we know we have your support. Stay tuned.
-Chip and Nicole"
This, if true, is a complete bullsheet move by Bell's. I will give them that.
mcartt11
Well-Known Member
Now that's horse of a different color.
drainbamage
Keep HBT weird.
The plot thickens...
agrazela
Well-Known Member
MGM called. They're suing your ass.
Gotta say, looks like I'm swinging even further toward Innovation in this case. Sounds like Bell's started with a dick move, and has just been piling on more dick moves.
ArkotRamathorn
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 1,302
- Reaction score
- 317
The right thing to do is let your brand potentially suffer and spend additional capital to rebrand yourself and create new advertisements, new labeling, new naming schemes? So the business goes under because of this and the employees lose their jobs, you're going to say that that's the "Right" thing to do? Really? I was presenting a hypothetical situation. To Innovation Brewing, I HIGHLY doubt a couple things:
1.They created the name with the intention of creating a perceived infringement on a slogan that *most* Bell's fans are not even aware of.
2.Once the trademark was granted they would've immediately litigating Bell's or any other brewery that uses "Innovation" in any of their branding schemse.
It's not that sueing people is the problem. The only punishment that truly works in a capitalist country is monetary punishment, if you want to protect something, you have to present a punishment that would make it disadvantageous for the other party to not cease and desist.
Are you going to say that Innovation Brewing, as soon as the trademark was granted, would have sued Bell's for trademark infringement? Keep in mind that Innovation Brewing probably had no idea the posibility even existed.
Not to mention now it looks like theres a potential that NO demands of ANY outrageous sums of money.
Last edited:
Based on the public comments that have now been made, I think it is silly to say "it looks like" or "apparently", as one side is clearly bald face lying about the events leading up to this. To use those phrases now means you just assume one side is telling the truth, with zero proof of such.
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2008
- Messages
- 65,431
- Reaction score
- 10,793
Regardless of who is doing what, boycott is ridiculous. Let them battle is out in the courts. Enjoy their products for what they are and the world keeps spinning. Buisiness is business. And short of an assassination, legal recourse is their legal right no matter what your opinion is.
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2013
- Messages
- 4,302
- Reaction score
- 5,125
Screw Bells
OP
OP
mcartt11
Well-Known Member
The problem with battling it out in the courts is that the company that is right may not always be the one that wins. The past is littered with small companies that were right, but they just couldn't afford to take on a company with deeper pockets. I am not suggesting that Innovation is right in this case. I think the jury is still out on that, but legal action doesn't always result in a fair or correct final resolution.
hunter_le five
Sheriff Underscore
Wait, which brewery that doesn't even distribute anywhere near me am I boycotting again?
bless it. I'll just wear my "I Hate Larry Bell" t-shirt and my "Chip Owen and Nicole Dexter Suck" socks to be on the safe side.
bless it. I'll just wear my "I Hate Larry Bell" t-shirt and my "Chip Owen and Nicole Dexter Suck" socks to be on the safe side.
OP
OP
Remember, it's not a lawsuit...
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2008
- Messages
- 65,431
- Reaction score
- 10,793
Court battles are not about what is right. It is about what is legal.
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2008
- Messages
- 65,431
- Reaction score
- 10,793
Yet.
drainbamage
Keep HBT weird.
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2008
- Messages
- 65,431
- Reaction score
- 10,793
Now it looks like a Zorse and still no-body really knows what the hell its all about but the best thing to do is to just leave it be.
