Bells suing a small brewer

[GilaMinumBeer]

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

This. And even then it would have to be over a violation of health, or some gregarious violation of civility.

I never fault a company for an acquisition, marketing ploy (unless false advertising), or legal action. That is just business.

 

[mcartt11]

.

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

+1

 

[smcinco]

overturned in Lawrence v. Texas

see my post

Gotcha, my man, thanks. I dated myself a little bit as to when I studied.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

Maybe a different comparison next time might be better.

No. The leaps made here have been equally as foolish even IF the facts are as severe as some have assumed.

Boycott Bells because they are going after a start-up for trademark, which is what was initially assumed, is as dumb as telling a rape victim they are guilty for not preventing a rape.

 

[hunter_le five]

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

T-shirts! Get your t-shirts! T-shirts right here! $13.00 buys you an opportunity to tell Larry Bell exactly how you feel about his cruel capitalistic tactics! Get your T-shirts today!

 

[mcartt11]

No. The leaps made here have been equally as foolish even IF the facts are as severe as some have assumed.

Boycott Bells because they are going after a start-up for trademark, which is what was initially assumed, is as dumb as telling a rape victim they are guilty for not preventing a rape.

Absolutely agree that the boycott and the strong statements early in this discussion were way out of line as most of the details were not know and still aren't.

We will just have to agree to disagree on the appropriateness of comparison. I definitely don't agree on its appropriateness, but I won't boycott you or sling around a bunch disparaging statements. Just a disagreement of viewpoints.

 

[The_Nid_Hog]

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.

That's how it sounds to me too. Worse comes to worse, the folks up at Innovation can invest in a couple of buckets of paint and some White Out. By the end of the day, everybody will be enjoying a nice cold beer at the bar of Ovation Brewing and the lawyers can all slink home.

 

[drainbamage]

Larry Bell isn't happy at how he's being portrayed through all of this:

http://mibiz.com/item/22297-editor’s-notebook-larry-bell-unsettled-by-anger-toward-bell’s-brewery

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

Absolutely agree that the boycott and the strong statements early in this discussion were way out of line as most of the details were not know and still aren't.

We will just have to agree to disagree on the appropriateness of comparison. I definitely don't agree on its appropriateness, but I won't boycott you or sling around a bunch disparaging statements. Just a disagreement of viewpoints.

I equate early sentiments as being a sort of financial rape. Isn't that essentially what trademark disputes are? I rarely hear about one that has a truly concise argument that one brand is too similar to another. The majority of the time the similarities are very abstract.

 

[tnance1337]

I really shouldn't form an opinion, but they both sound foolish, to me.

I sort of compare it to a couple of kids refusing to play together. You know the old game ... "Oh yeah, well my GI Joe has a laser!" ... "Oh yeah?! Well MY GI Joe has a laser shield!" ... "Well my GI Joe has a special laser that can shoot through your laser shield!" Before you know it, they hate each other, become completely irrational, and refuse to play together again. Of course, they'd have way more fun playing together, but now they let ego emotions ruin their fun.

I get the argument that you must protect yourself as a business from past, present, and future threats to your business, however small. You are a business, after all, and you're there to make money so you can stay in business. It's just a shame they can't work together civilly on this. They both should have stayed out of social media until it was resolved. Unfortunately, now that shots are fired, they may not solve it amicably. We'll see...

 

[soccerdad]

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

Maybe on a large scale as an organized effort boycott is difficult - as far as one's own personal buying habits it is easy ... I can name a dozen companies that I have chosen to never again patronize .. I simply go elsewhere. What could be more serious, yet so easy? If Bells makes the list I will tell them why (as I did BP), and I will go away forever.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

That's how it sounds to me too. Worse comes to worse, the folks up at Innovation can invest in a couple of buckets of paint and some White Out. By the end of the day, everybody will be enjoying a nice cold beer at the bar of Ovation Brewing and the lawyers can all slink home.

It's not that simple. Which is why I do not fault Innovation either. "If" innovation did ask for an exorbitant pay-out even that makes sense despite whether I like it or not. It either, buys time for counter offers or works and increases capital.

 

[Disintegr8or]

One of the posts you quoted stated that they were not requesting a name change, but wanted to prevent them from trademarking Innovation Brewing.

That is not at all what it sounds like to me. What it sounds like to me, based on the suggestion of a co-existence agreement, is that Bell's said "we have no problem with your name, so long as we have assurances that you will not one day sue us to claim that our slogan infringes upon your trademark". That is what a co-existence agreement is all about. Everyone has the right to use their brand/logo/name/slogan just as they always have, and the other side has no right to claim it is a violation of their rights.

If this is really what Bell's suggested (assuming the agreement was reasonable), and offered to pay Innovation's legal costs to get it done, then I think the wrong party is being demonized here.

But, again, we don't know the nitty-gritty details.

From Innovations FB this morning: https://www.facebook.com/innovationbrewing/posts/455657244592313

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.

Looks like I was right yesterday after all. No more Bell's for me.

 

[hunter_le five]

Larry Bell isn't happy at how he's being portrayed through all of this:

http://mibiz.com/item/22297-editor’s-notebook-larry-bell-unsettled-by-anger-toward-bell’s-brewery

Interesting read, if true (or should I say the whole truth).

From Innovations FB this morning: https://www.facebook.com/innovationbrewing/posts/455657244592313



Looks like I was right yesterday after all. No more Bell's for me.

This doesn't make you "right". You're still assuming one party is telling 100% the truth the other one is lying.

Clearly one or both parties are, at the very least, not telling the whole story, but to side with one over the other based on pretty much nothing seems kind of arbitrary.

 

[phenry]

From Innovations FB this morning: https://www.facebook.com/innovationbrewing/posts/455657244592313

So Bell's is saying one thing and Innovation is saying another? What a conundrum!

 

[falkaveli]

Weak...very weak.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

Looks like I was right yesterday after all. No more Bell's for me.

No. The only thing it "looks like" is that someone is embellishing, or someone is flat out lying.

The latter being the only true offense in this situation.

Furthermore, who do you think you are really going to hurt with your boycott?

Larry? No.

Think about it. If sales deplete he will downsize to compensate losses. So, congratulations your little boycott got bottling line Jeff/Susan fired so Larry can keep full coverage on his Benze.

Put away the boycott BS for a real offense.

 

[Ridire]

Looks like I was right yesterday after all. No more Bell's for me.

Yes, because there is zero chance that Bell's is telling it as it is. The little guy always tells the truth and the complete truth and the "big evil corporation" always lies and distorts.

How on earth, does this prove you were right?

 

[chickypad]

It would be nice to know the truth about the co-existence agreements, that seems to be biggest area where one side must be outright lying if the quotes in the MiBiz article are accurate. I think what bothers me the most is the premise that anyone would confuse Innovation Brewing with a slogan about bottling innovation. I get it that protecting the brand has to be done, and I can understand when they wanted the Three-Hearted name removed (though personally I thought that was free advertising). This just seems a bit on the ridiculous side.

 

[Grannyknot]

No. The only thing it "looks like" is that someone is embellishing, or someone is flat out lying.

The latter being the only true offense in this situation.

Furthermore, who do you think you are really going to hurt with your boycott?

Larry? No.

Think about it. If sales deplete he will downsize to compensate losses. So, congratulations your little boycott got bottling line Jeff/Susan fired so Larry can keep full coverage on his Benze.

Put away the boycott BS for a real offense.

I'm sure Bell's thanks you for the ardent defense of their legal rights & proclamation that they are just practicing smart business decisions, but really a boycott isn't going to hurt their sales.

The people "boycotting" are a tiny fraction of their customer base when you consider legitimate consumer #s. When this is all wrapped up, 90% of those people will return to purchasing their products, just like what happens to every other 2-bit boycott.

I'm sorry that you have been so offended by people talking on a website about their feelings on the subject. By equating this to rape & lynch mobs, it just wreaks of a beg for attention, and is borderline antagonistic.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

I'm sorry that you have been so offended by people talking on a website about their feelings on the subject. By equating this to rape & lynch mobs, it just wreaks of a beg for attention, and is borderline antagonistic.

You obviously have no idea what effect a boycott can have on a business when fueled by social media. Nor do you have a rational concept of what other foolishness occurs.

I am beyond borderline and being openly antagonistic with regard to the idea of boycott. It deserves attention.

Once facts are known, emails of disapproval are one thing. a collaborative boycott is something else and is unnecessarily detrimental to either side regarding this dispute.

 

[IslandLizard]

Unfortunately, no. I know the head brewer/owner and have brewed with him on his system. He mentioned this to me in September while I was there and it was perfectly clear to me that Bells and Innovation are definitely not in cahoots with each other.

This disgusts me beyond words but I will not elaborate other than to say Innovation makes fantastic beers that I would gladly drink over Bell's stuff any day. The only problem is you have to drive to Sylva, NC to get it. I really hope this backfires on them. Bell's distributes to NC and to the best of my knowledge every bar and store in Sylva has completed dumped all of its Bell's products. Asheville (which is a huge market for Bell's) is only 45 mins away. If Asheville starts taking on the fight, and Asheville is the kind of city to do that, then Bell's could really start seeing some damage to their bottom line.

I sincerely hope that happens.

Actually I wrote that with some tongue in cheek. Litigation is expensive and time consuming. Sadly, bringing out the truth of the matter is usually not the aim. The one who brings the most compelling argument within the written law typically wins. The loser loses big, often with a dead blow.

The only 2 times I had Bell's was in NC and I was very disappointed with Two Hearted. In Chapel Hill perhaps the bottles were old, but it definitely didn't taste like a good IPA to me. For comparison, I'll take Carolina Brewery's Flagship IPA any time, but that club we were in just didn't have it anymore, got rid of their 2 taps. On Ocracoke I had it from tap and it was somewhat better but all said and done, still nothing to write home about. At least it won't offend the masses.

I started brewing my own, inspired by 2-Hearted, which is more the way I like it.

I'll look for Innovation next time we visit. Bell's out.

 

[wardens355]

Put away the boycott BS for a real offense.

I agree it is too early to pass judgment on this. The problem I have is trying to organize a boycott based on incomplete information. If you don't want to buy Bell's, then don't buy it, but don't tell others not to buy it for a reason that may be erroneous. Let others make their own hasty decision without giving them potentially bad information to make that decision.

As far as worrying about forcing layoffs due to a boycott, that would be a bad result if it comes out that Bell's wasn't an inconsiderate aggressor. If it comes out and is established that they were pretty shifty, I have no problem with a boycott, even if it costs jobs, because the only way to make your opinion of the situation heard is to stop buying the products. But at this point, a boycott seems inappropriate.

 

[soccerdad]

Larry Bell isn't happy at how he's being portrayed through all of this:

http://mibiz.com/item/22297-editor’s-notebook-larry-bell-unsettled-by-anger-toward-bell’s-brewery

Holy chit, man. This proves that Larry Bell is a major loser! I mean, enjoying the friendly confines of Wrigley Field - sure we all do. But actually being fan enough to call the Cubs 'beloved'??? This boy needs a whole team of psychiatrists.

More seriously, if this is true, "Bell’s offered Innovation Brewing’s owners numerous settlement options including coexistence agreements that would allow them to keep the name and run their business as-is, and even expand into other states, he said," then all Larry needs to do is show the world a copy of said agreement and swing public opinion back in his favor. It would show Innovation in a bold faced lie.

 

[DrankGoodness]

then all Larry needs to do is show the world a copy of said agreement and swing public opinion back in his favor. It would show Innovation in a bold faced lie.

I think you have the right answer!

 

[rmyurick]

Kombat--no, I don't think they're claiming they invented "innovation", just because they want to name their brewery "Innovation Brewing".

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

Holy chit, man. This proves that Larry Bell is a major loser! I mean, enjoying the friendly confines of Wrigley Field - sure we all do. But actually being fan enough to call the Cuds 'beloved'??? This boy needs a whole team of psychiatrists.

More seriously, if this is true, "Bell’s offered Innovation Brewing’s owners numerous settlement options including coexistence agreements that would allow them to keep the name and run their business as-is, and even expand into other states, he said," then all Larry needs to do is show the world a copy of said agreement and swing public opinion back in his favor. It would show Innovation in a bold faced lie.

I think you have the right answer!

I don't think it will matter. There is already a suggestion that timing is controversial. Even if LB produced a document, presentation would be a dispute.

 

[DrankGoodness]

I don't think it will matter. There is already a suggestion that timing is controversial. Even if LB produced a document, presentation would be a dispute.

of course it would matter.

some news organization needs to get the actual facts out instead of allowing the parties involved to use them to put out their own spin.

 

[JonM]

And the dollar amount Innovation demanded.

 

[Homercidal]

Holy chit, man. This proves that Larry Bell is a major loser! I mean, enjoying the friendly confines of Wrigley Field - sure we all do. But actually being fan enough to call the Cubs 'beloved'??? This boy needs a whole team of psychiatrists.

More seriously, if this is true, "Bell’s offered Innovation Brewing’s owners numerous settlement options including coexistence agreements that would allow them to keep the name and run their business as-is, and even expand into other states, he said," then all Larry needs to do is show the world a copy of said agreement and swing public opinion back in his favor. It would show Innovation in a bold faced lie.

That may work if there is an actual paper copy of the agreement. However, there may have only been a verbal offer and a verbal decline. It's entirely possible that several various offers were made and refused.

At this point it's a he-said, she-said situation.