Bells suing a small brewer

[GrogNerd]

Bells, according to statement, is not claiming trademark. They are attempting to prevent themselves from being sued over a non-trademarked slogan.

I've seen the bumper sticker. Never heard of Innovation Brewing until now. Make a difference? No.

like I said, their current logo and slogan are both registered trademarks, unlike "bottling innovation"

I can understand Bell's not wanting to be sued by Innovation once Innovation got their brand trademarked. looks like Bell's move was a preemptive strike, and now they look like dicks for it.

had they not filed to block, then been sued by Innovation, I certainly would be on Bell's side. as it stands now, I'm not

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

like I said, their current logo and slogan are both registered trademarks, unlike "bottling innovation"

I can understand Bell's not wanting to be sued by Innovation once Innovation got their brand trademarked. looks like Bell's move was a preemptive strike, and now they look like dicks for it.

had they not filed to block, then been sued by Innovation, I certainly would be on Bell's side. as it stands now, I'm not

So, they are the bad guys for trying to prevent an opportunity for Innovation to sue?

 

[Ridire]

had they not filed to block, then been sued by Innovation, I certainly would be on Bell's side. as it stands now, I'm not

I would think I commit malpractice if I advised my client to not take precautionary steps, but to rather wait to be sued and see if you win. I don't see that as a viable option.

 

[kombat]

So, they are the bad guys for trying to prevent an opportunity for Innovation to sue?

Yeah, I don't get it. Knows all the facts, yet still takes the side of the guys who first decided to involve lawyers and bureaucrats.

 

[mcartt11]

Bells, according to statement, is not claiming trademark. They are attempting to prevent themselves from being sued over a non-trademarked slogan.

This is the part that I am not quite clear on legally. Do you have legal knowledge such that you can expand further? Are they forced to stop using their slogan the minute the trademark application for Innovation is approved? What about use of the slogan before the application is approved, anything that is done about that?

Also, if that is the case, why not just draft an agreement that says that? Why ask for the limited expansion of the brewer?

 

[GrogNerd]

So, they are the bad guys for trying to prevent an opportunity for Innovation to sue?

I would think I commit malpractice if I advised my client to not take precautionary steps, but to rather wait to be sued and see if you win. I don't see that as a viable option.

so, the much better option is to bring in the lawyers, block the trademark application, demand the upstart never expand out of the Tar Heel State, thereby initiating a social media sh%tstorm and taking a hit to reputation and sales?

if you have license to practice in the Commonwealth, I'll seek legal representation elsewhere, thankyouverymuch

 

[mcartt11]

To me, pulling in the Inspired Brewing slogan is a stretch. Innovation and Inspired and not the same, at least to me. I get the Brewing Innovation slogan and their right to protect that. I just don't understand why they haven't wanted to protect it before now.

 

[Ridire]

Also, if that is the case, why not just draft an agreement that says that? Why ask for the limited expansion of the brewer?

That is what Bell's claims to have asked for. Innovation claims otherwise. Whoever is telling the truth here probably is in the right, in my mind (not necessarily in the law's mind).

 

[hunter_le five]

That is what Bell's claims to have asked for. Innovation claims otherwise. Whoever is telling the truth here probably is in the right, in my mind (not necessarily in the law's mind).

The "truth" probably lies somewhere in between, as is usually the case when two parties' stories seem to completely contradict one another.

 

[Ridire]

so, the much better option is to bring in the lawyers, block the trademark application, demand the upstart never expand out of the Tar Heel State, thereby initiating a social media sh%tstorm and taking a hit to reputation and sales?

if you have license to practice in the Commonwealth, I'll seek legal representation elsewhere, thankyouverymuch

You again are assuming that Bell's is lying and Innovation is telling the truth.

I would advise (of course I do not have all the facts) that Bell's do exactly what they CLAIM to have done. Ask for a co-existence agreement. I would not suggest they attempt to block expansion...but that, if attempted, was a business decision by Bell's, not a legal decision.

EDIT: and, if Bell's is telling the truth, that Innovation demanded a huge dollar amount in exchange for the co-existence agreement, then you're damn right I'd suggest you attempt to block the application for a very generic name like "Innovation".

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

This is the part that I am not quite clear on legally. Do you have legal knowledge such that you can expand further? Are they forced to stop using their slogan the minute the trademark application for Innovation is approved? What about use of the slogan before the application is approved, anything that is done about that?

Also, if that is the case, why not just draft an agreement that says that? Why ask for the limited expansion of the brewer?

The only knowledge I have, from being a corp owner is that you have to protect yourself from everything because you can be sued over anything.

My assumption is that Bells is nervous because the slogan is not trademarked but the sticker is still in circulation. With Innovation seeking a trademark Bells sees a remote opportunity for financial losses and is doing what they, and their legal team, have deemed appropriate to protect their interests in a similar market.

I see no foul by either side. If they cannot come to a reasonable agreement out of court, then that is what the courts are for and they cannot base their decision on what they "think" is right but instead on what they can prove is legal.

 

[kombat]

so, the much better option is to bring in the lawyers, block the trademark application, demand the upstart never expand out of the Tar Heel State, thereby initiating a social media sh%tstorm and taking a hit to reputation and sales?

So, what are you saying, Bell's lawyers are idiots? That with the wealth of information you've gleaned from the media and two Facebook posts, you're just as qualified to evaluate the situation as Bell's lawyers, and you've concluded they made a stupid move?

Lawyers are a lot of things (slimy, arrogant, two-faced, greedy), but one thing they're NOT is "stupid." You have to be incredibly smart to pass the bar. If this is the way they've decided to play this, then it's for a very good reason.

 

[Ridire]

So, what are you saying, Bell's lawyers are idiots? That with the wealth of information you've gleaned from the media and two Facebook posts, you're just as qualified to evaluate the situation as Bell's lawyers, and you've concluded they made a stupid move?

Lawyers are a lot of things (slimy, arrogant, two-faced, greedy), but one thing they're NOT is "stupid." You have to be incredibly smart to pass the bar. If this is the way they've decided to play this, then it's for a very good reason.

 

[mcartt11]

That is what Bell's claims to have asked for. Innovation claims otherwise. Whoever is telling the truth here probably is in the right, in my mind (not necessarily in the law's mind).

Maybe you are correct, but I sort of have to lean toward Innovation's statement because I would find it hard to believe that they wouldn't accept that, while I could definitely see them rejecting it with the expansion restriction. Innovation's statement specifically says that the expansion was part of the agreement. Seems like a PR nightmare for them if they lie about that. Bell's statement says very little about what they offered just that they offered. So, they really aren't lying, but they may not be telling the full story. Somewhat of a PR nightmare as well, but easy to spin by stating that they didn't provide details because it was a pending negotiation.

I'm still withholding judgement and I think we will probably never know everything becuase their will be a settlement that doesn't divulge details.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

so, the much better option is to bring in the lawyers, block the trademark application, demand the upstart never expand out of the Tar Heel State, thereby initiating a social media sh%tstorm and taking a hit to reputation and sales?

if you have license to practice in the Commonwealth, I'll seek legal representation elsewhere, thankyouverymuch

the only questionable move here is it being brought into social media. aside from that all else are reasonable legal moves. Blocking the trademark is smart. As it provides for more time to plan around the possibilities.

 

[hunter_le five]

So, they really aren't lying, but they may not be telling the full story.

I suspect both parties are being guilty of this, which makes it difficult for anyone to get an accurate assessment of the situation, unfortunately.

People tend to focus on why the other guy is an *******, and not what they themselves did or didn't do that exacerbated the situation.

 

[mcartt11]

The only knowledge I have, from being a corp owner is that you have to protect yourself from everything because you can be sued over anything.

My assumption is that Bells is nervous because the slogan is not trademarked but the sticker is still in circulation. With Innovation seeking a trademark Bells sees a remote opportunity for financial losses and is doing what they, and their legal team, have deemed appropriate to protect their interests in a similar market.

I see no foul by either side. If they cannot come to a reasonable agreement out of court, then that is what the courts are for and they cannot base their decision on what they "think" is right but instead on what they can prove is legal.

That all makes sense. Still makes me wonder why Bell's didn't protect the slogan if they were going to use it. Lots of this is avoided if they did. I'm guessing today they wished they had.

 

[Hello]

But this assumes that Bells is lying in their public statement, as opposed to Innovation. That may be the case, but why leap to the conclusion as to who is lying here without evidence?

If Bell's version of the story is correct, they did not ask anyone to rebrand anything.

We man never know who is telling the truth here, as it will likely end in some sort of confidential settlement...

I was not saying Bells is lying without evidence. What I was saying is that when Innovation filed a trademark and Bells gave them less than 24 hours to retract their filing, that was the very moment Innovation had to make a decision to re-brand their business. It is re-branding when Innovation is their name and Bells' issue is with them using the word. Perhaps Bells wasn't asking Innovation to re-brand their entire business, but if you tell me I can't use the word innovation and my business name is Innovation, then what else am I supposed to assume?

I agree, we may never know the story, but we do know that Bells believes Innovation should not be granted the TM because it supposedly will confuse people and Bells has spent decades building their brand around "innovation", or something like that. I've drank a fair amount of Bells and I have a few stickers from Bells and they used the word inspired on one. I think they were posted here in the thread somewhere.

 

[Ridire]

Maybe you are correct, but I sort of have to lean toward Innovation's statement because I would find it hard to believe that they wouldn't accept that, while I could definitely see them rejecting it with the expansion restriction. Innovation's statement specifically says that the expansion was part of the agreement. Seems like a PR nightmare for them if they lie about that. Bell's statement says very little about what they offered just that they offered. So, they really aren't lying, but they may not be telling the full story. Somewhat of a PR nightmare as well, but easy to spin by stating that they didn't provide details because it was a pending negotiation.

I'm still withholding judgement and I think we will probably never know everything becuase their will be a settlement that doesn't divulge details.

You may be 100% correct, and nobody here knows enough to dispute or confirm any of this.

But why would Innovation not just agree to the co-existence agreement? Who knows. Did they see it as an opportunity to use their leverage to get a big pay day out of Bell's? Maybe. Was there are a provision in there that said, "you will never distribute outside of North Carolina"? Maybe.

Nobody here knows...that is the point.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

I'm still withholding judgement and I think we will probably never know everything becuase their will be a settlement that doesn't divulge details.

And frankly, it is none of our business.

I swear to god this thread is treating this situation like somebody told a rape victim they were guilty of being raped.

Bells and Innovation are playing a game of marketing chess. Plain and simple. None of the moves are wrong, and each is done in consideration of best protection.

 

[Ridire]

I was not saying Bells is lying without evidence. What I was saying is that when Innovation filed a trademark and Bells gave them less than 24 hours to retract their filing, that was the very moment Innovation had to make a decision to re-brand their business. It is re-branding when Innovation is their name and Bells' issue is with them using the word. Perhaps Bells wasn't asking Innovation to re-brand their entire business, but if you tell me I can't use the word innovation and my business name is Innovation, then what else am I supposed to assume?

I agree, we may never know the story, but we do know that Bells believes Innovation should not be granted the TM because it supposedly will confuse people and Bells has spent decades building their brand around "innovation", or something like that. I've drank a fair amount of Bells and I have a few stickers from Bells and they used the word inspired on one. I think they were posted here in the thread somewhere.

But Bell's claims (again, who knows) that the request was not to withdraw the filing, but rather to sign a co-existence agreement, and when Innovation refused to do so, then they demanded they withdraw the filing. That is the Bell's version of the story, from what I can gather from their public statement.

 

[mbbransc]

Lawyers are a lot of things (slimy, arrogant, two-faced, greedy), but one thing they're NOT is "stupid." You have to be incredibly smart to pass the bar. If this is the way they've decided to play this, then it's for a very good reason.

Pfft. You can be book smart without having any common sense.

I imagine in a few weeks we'll see a pick of the Bells and IB family clanking glasses and all of this will be behind us... until the next lawsuit.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

Was there are a provision in there that said, "you will never distribute outside of North Carolina"? Maybe.

Nobody here knows...that is the point.

So what if there was?

It still makes perfect sense. If you had an opportunity, no matter how remote, to negotiate a legally binding agreement to eliminate competition in a market, wouldn't you attempt to pursue it?

 

[Homercidal]

It's all for our entertainment. I'd actually care a lot if I were a brewery and wanted to know better how these things work.

As it is, it's a mild amusement for me. I couldn't care much one way or the other. Bell's slogan is pretty lame, and Innovation's name is not that great (IMO) either.

 

[Ridire]

So what if there was?

It still makes perfect sense. If you had an opportunity, no matter how remote, to negotiate a legally binding agreement to eliminate competition in a market, wouldn't you attempt to pursue it?

To an extent, I agree. Lots of times there are provisions put into a contract draft that you do not expect to make the final cut, but you take a shot.

Also, even if Innovation did ask for huge $ from Bell's, or if Bell's did ask for a restriction to North Carolina, who knows which came first? It is not unusual for one party to see a ridiculous clause in an agreement and insert an equally ridiculous clause into their version for negotiating purposes.

"What, we can only distribute in North Carolina under your co-existence agreement? OK, but you have to give me a million dollars to sign this thing."

Who knows how it went down? Not me.

 

[smcinco]

I'm talking about laws that are actually enforced, not obscure anachronistic relics from a century ago. How many states still have laws against sodomy on the books?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowers_v._Hardwick

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

It's all for our entertainment. I'd actually care a lot if I were a brewery and wanted to know better how these things work.

As it is, it's a mild amusement for me. I couldn't care much one way or the other. Bell's slogan is pretty lame, and Innovation's name is not that great (IMO) either.

And I found it entertaining until people started concocting emails of shame and collaborating a boycott. Then it turned foolish and annoying.

 

[Ridire]

And I found it entertaining until people started concocting emails of shame and collaborating a boycott. Then it turned foolish and annoying.

Word.

I like to follow these sorts of things, but I acknowledge that I do not know the details that would really be needed to form an opinion. I usually throw out the "if this happened, then that is probably a bull**** move...". The probably is because, even if I knew that the thing happened, I do not know what else was going on.

Boycotting a business is serious business. I would have to have absolute facts before I would ever do such a thing.

 

[mcartt11]

And frankly, it is none of our business.

I swear to god this thread is treating this situation like somebody told a rape victim they were guilty of being raped.

Bells and Innovation are playing a game of marketing chess. Plain and simple. None of the moves are wrong, and each is done in consideration of best protection.

Whoa. Moving from a nice civilized (mostly) debate on a subject that seems to be of interest to many of us to a comparison to a rape victim seems like a really insensitive leap. Maybe a different comparison next time might be better.

 

[GrogNerd]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowers_v._Hardwick

overturned in Lawrence v. Texas

see my post

zero

Lawrence v. Texas struck down all anti-sodomy laws in states which still had them as of 2003