Bells suing a small brewer

[bluehende]

The "common law trademark" is interesting , but in this case, Bell's using the phrase "bottling innovation since 1985" may not prevent Innovation Brewing from receiving a trademark. The Trade Mark office examining attorney could find nothing that should prevent Innovation Brewing from getting the trademark.

I am not sure this is not the outcome that Bell's wants. If the trademark office rules that Bell's common law slogan and Trademarked slogan do not conflict with the then trademarked Innovation Brewing they would be free to use it everywhere without fear of suit from them.

 

[lschiavo]

If Innovation were shipping their beer up for Bell's to bottle for them, and they had been since 1985, there would be no issue.

 

[mbauer013]

I am not sure this is not the outcome that Bell's wants. If the trademark office rules that Bell's common law slogan and Trademarked slogan do not conflict with the then trademarked Innovation Brewing they would be free to use it everywhere without fear of suit from them.

I don't know, I think Bells just wanted a co-existence agreement, and if the Trademark office states there is no conflict, they can both continue to use it. Sounds like a de-facto co-existence ruling to me. To bad they couldn't have worked it out before the legal fees though if this is the case.

 

[BierCraft]

Rights to a trademark can be acquired by being the first to use the mark in commerce or by being the first to register the mark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Bell's did not fulfill the second option, as far as we know, and therefore must rely on the first.

Under the first option, the mark must first be used in commerce, which it was. Secondly, the mark may qualify for protection (and can be registered) only after it has acquired secondary meaning (secondary meaning directly describes, rather than suggests, a characteristic or quality of the underlying product). A descriptive mark acquires secondary meaning when the consuming public primarily associates that mark with a particular producer, rather than the underlying product, and this is really only applicable in the areas in which the product is available. Furthermore, Bell's only uses the slogan on bumper stickers and not on the products or websites, which weakens Bell's argument.

The debate at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office will hinge on the comparison of Bottling Innovation and Innovation Brewing, how similar they are, is there possible confusion between the brands due to the similarity, does the public associate either slogan/name with one brand and not the other, where the slogan is used, etc...

However, Bell's released a statement on their website:

"We have not, and are not asking them to change their name or their logo. There is no lawsuit. We are not suing them. We have not asked them for money. We have not asked them to stop selling their beer. We are asking them to withdraw their federal trademark application. Our concern is with their United States trademark application and potential impact on our brand, which we have spent 30 years building."

In the end, they still want Innovation Brewing to stop the application process, but have at least offered to "coexist". It might be that Innovation Brewing is being stubborn as they rejected Bell's offer and asked for a large sum of money (reportedly). It might also be that Bell's is being predatory by filing a lawsuit, possibly with the knowledge they might lose, but with the knowledge that they can outlast and bankrupt Innovation Brewing during these proceedings, only to buy the trademark later for a small fee as Innovation Brewing might need any money they can get.

Lesson to be learned: Trademark as soon as possible.

Prost from Germany

 

[Weezy]

Being limited to NC =/= "coexist"

I have every confidence that Bell's will win its argument at the TTAB. If you look at any of their decisions, they're heavily favored toward first to use plaintiffs. It sure smells like *****ebaggery to me regardless. I've bought my last Two Hearted ale and if I see anyone buying a pint, i'll be sure they hear the story, starting off with "does the phrase 'bottling innovation since 1985' ring any bells to you?"

 

[rocketsan]

Dropped by Innovation on Saturday for a Hops and Robbers IPA, delicious.

Double Trouble Brewery in Canada has a Hops and Robbers IPA...

 

[rocketsan]

http://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/28433/78623/

 

[govner1]

Being limited to NC =/= "coexist"



I have every confidence that Bell's will win its argument at the TTAB. If you look at any of their decisions, they're heavily favored toward first to use plaintiffs. It sure smells like *****ebaggery to me regardless. I've bought my last Two Hearted ale and if I see anyone buying a pint, i'll be sure they hear the story, starting off with "does the phrase 'bottling innovation since 1985' ring any bells to you?"

They may win the battle & lose the war ( market). I passed on several Bells offerings this week & chose other craft brews. Innovative shopping!!
And I'll continue to do so.

 

[kombat]

Double Trouble Brewery in Canada has a Hops and Robbers IPA...

http://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/28433/78623/

Welcome to the conversation.

 

[wailingguitar]

What people slagging Bell's (who have a better case than many and have really not been jerks about this) seem to keep missing is that it is the nature of the law that actually forces them into this. "Vigorously Defend" is the key phrase, if you don't do that then from that point on you open yourself up to all kinds of crap. Hypothetically, lets say they don't defend this, there is then nothing to stop AB-InBev or Miller/Coors from coming along and using some part of a phrase they have been using. They throw in a trademark app, say 'well, Belll's didn't defend against X, so they have relinquished rights to their unregistered marks', Bell's (or whoever) doesn't have the $$ to fight them, they lose it and the snow ball keeps growing bigger. ***** about the law that makes this kind of action a necessity, not the companies whose businesses have to deal with it.

 

[Highside]

Innovation has offered Bells™ several co-existence agreements.

 

[Weezy]

Vigorous defense does not have to mean that you must completely prevent and deny all use of of the TM. This isn't a new shoe company trying to use the Nike swoop. This is a brewery using a generic word as a proper name vs. A brewery using the same word in a marketing phrase. The only overlap is that they're in the same industry. There's not enough opportunity for confusion to justify such a heavy handed approach (not that the review board will see it that way). So we get to vote with our dollars. Let the free market reign!

If they want to be good neighbors, they can defend their TM and deny IB their TM, but allow them to freely use the name with an unlimited, very inexpensive if not free, license.

 

[Paps]

we get to vote with our dollars. Let the free market reign!

.

:rockin:

 

[baron]

Went to a NHL game the other day -- and they had a craft brewery area. I asked the guy which beer was their biggest seller and he said "Bell's Two - Hearted Ale". (This was out of around 10 or so taps)
I was somewhat surprised.
Their beers are pretty good, but not much of a two-hearted or Oberon fan. Those styles are just not my cup of tea. But -- do like their stouts.

 

[PlexVector]

Now there's a term I haven't heard since I was in the UK. Wonder how many folks on this side of the pond got the reference?

Maybe we should start calling Bells the Bell End Brewery.

Maybe Bell End already has a brewery...Oh, you're refering to that other bell end.

 

[rocketsan]

Welcome to the conversation.

Sorry if I stole your thunder Zeus.... :/

 

[harrydrez]

Nope, you should chill out. I can deal with a hipster, but dealing with someone with your **** attitude is something no one should have to deal with. Calm down kiddo, it's all going to be okay.

I am calm, you're the one trying to stifle dissenting opinions, kiddo.

 

[govner1]

Time to take a timeout children !

 

[Hello]

I'm off this cazy train. I hope at the very least you RDWHAHB.

 

[A2HB]

I just brewed a two hearted clone and when its ready im going to buy a couple bottles of the real deal to compare it with. Bells is alright by me and Ill continue to support them and their products

 

[mattmmille]

Not going to argue legal minutia. The "spirit of the law" should not be to bankrupt a small business or make them suffer, unless they used another company's name or product name or a licensed slogan...either ignorantly or on purpose. I've heard both sides claim to have made multiple offers and that the other refused. I've also heard both sides claim that only THEY made offers and only the OTHER company refused. I've heard Ms. Bell state on their website that they aren't suing, and they don't want Innovation Brewing to change ANYTHING. Really? Then what's the big dust-up all about?! You know you want SOMETHING! So, I lean towards believing the little guys. And they are an NC company...so they have THAT going for them. Personally, I'm not going to argue; I'm voting with my beer selections. You do what YOU feel is right.

 

[chickypad]

This thread got crazy long so sorry if someone has already linked this, but check out the new brewery that just opened on the Cal Poly Pomona campus. Now that looks like a conflict.

 

[JonM]

Aye aye aye.

 

[bob1852]

This thread got crazy long so sorry if someone has already linked this, but check out the new brewery that just opened on the Cal Poly Pomona campus. Now that looks like a conflict.

Time to start a new thread....

"Innovation Brewing sues a small brewer!!!!!!!"

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

Innovative will agree to co-existence as long as Bells goes after Cal Poly instead.

 

[PlexVector]

Lol! You can't make this stuff up. Better than fiction!

 

[azscoob]

I tried to register so I could comment on the college brewery, wouldn't let me register........

 

[DrWill]

I've heard Ms. Bell state on their website that they aren't suing, and they don't want Innovation Brewing to change ANYTHING. Really? Then what's the big dust-up all about?! You know you want SOMETHING!

The long and short is that Bell's is trying to prevent the TM registration so that down the road Innovation can't prevent Bell's from using their slogan. They're not trying to force a name change, just prevent registration. Unfortunately in TM cases, you've got to be diligent otherwise you can end up screwed out of your own slogan.

 

[Jaybird]

Filing for a trademark must just have been to expensive for Bells..LOL

Flabbergasted really!

Cheers
Jay

 

[xandersaml]

I agree, there seems to be a "hate the big guy attitude" among many. However, I believe right s right and wrong is wrong, no matter the size of the combatants.
When I owned a restaurant (or it owned me) I used to get crap from customers seeking a comp meal.
Customer always said:"The customer is always right."
I always said: "Right is right and wrong is wrong."
If they were right they were treated better than royalty and made whole again, plus some. If they were wrong they paid or got police escort outta there.

 

[Weezy]

This is beyond the hate the big guy mentality, thanks to Mrs. Bell's social media statement with half truths and carefully worded points.

 

[xandersaml]

In the context of this thread, I sincerely hope that Bells story IS 100% correct.

It would further bolster the idiocy of this lynch mob mentality screaming boycott when they have no fvcking clue what is really going on beyond a "goliath" taking action against a "little guy".

I agree that more needed to be known before going all crazy.
Perhaps, had Bell's told their side of the story earlier, rather than saying "It's in the federal systems, no comment." Or words to that effect - backlash would've been less.

It is also a reasonable assumption that Bell's would not have made this information known without the "attack" from the lynch mob.

 

[Homercidal]

This is beyond the hate the big guy mentality, thanks to Mrs. Bell's social media statement with half truths and carefully worded points.

Half truths and carefully worded quotes are a part of business, and as I see it both parties are complicit in this regard.

We simply can't know for sure what was offered to whom, by whom, and when. All we have are what each sides claim.

And that, so far, is so much drivel.

I can foresee a local brewery having a hard time with their name, Red Tail Brewing. There is already a beer named Red Tail Ale.

 

[xandersaml]

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.

Few and far between

 

[xandersaml]

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.

Sure, but boycot is the right of each individual as well. Some people do not wish to support those with whom they disagree.
I'm ok with that.

 

[xandersaml]

Bells has always annoyed me. They design wonderful beers but refuse to really focus on growing the business to its full potential. They've got a very pretentious crunchy little Kalamazoo attitude. Their attacks on other craft breweries and LHBSs' never surprise me. Lame. You'd think after so many years they would have built a little more confidence in their brand and superb brews, increased distribution more, and simply grown the overall business way more. Maybe Larry should read "Brewing up a Business".

Maybe not all brewers want to become behemoths. Who cares what someone's definition of success and happiness is? I think I would "suffer" with Bell's growth status

 

[harleybug88]

Larry bell is a total ****** bag from what I hear from friends and family in the industry. This makes total sense coming from him.

I'm a retired truck driver. I delivered a lot of supplies to Bells back in the late 80's when it was him and 3 employees. Had to deliver through the front door. ( It was a challenge, backing a semi from a one-way street in downtown Kalamazoo.)

One time I delivered a pallet of 50 lbs bags of grain. As I'm handing down the bags to his employees, Mr. Larry Bell walks up and says in a very snide voice, "I'm the boss, I don't have to help".

I lost all respect for him at that moment.

 

[kombat]

One time I delivered a pallet of 50 lbs bags of grain. As I'm handing down the bags to his employees, Mr. Larry Bell walks up and says in a very snide voice, "I'm the boss, I don't have to help".

Just like that, eh? Walks up, and out of nowhere, with no one asking him anything or no one else saying anything, he just randomly blurts out, "I'm the boss, I don't have to help?" And "snidely," at that?

Sounds plausible.

And by the way, if I owned a company, and could afford to, I wouldn't be hauling sacks of grain (or cleaning out the mash tun) either. That's why you hire employees.

 

[wailingguitar]

Just like that, eh? Walks up, and out of nowhere, with no one asking him anything or no one else saying anything, he just randomly blurts out, "I'm the boss, I don't have to help?" And "snidely," at that?

Sounds plausible.

And by the way, if I owned a company, and could afford to, I wouldn't be hauling sacks of grain (or cleaning out the mash tun) either. That's why you hire employees.

I worked there in the late 80s, was probably one of the guys schlepping the grain on that day. I can tell you that Larry was no stranger to work and when the $#!+ hit the fan, he was there in spades and would leave it to US to delegate to HIM what he needed to do, and if that was dirty, grunt work while we were cleaning a fermenter, so be it. That being said, he also had a wicked, and occasionally subtle, sense of humor that could rub people wrong if they were thin skinned or didn't get him. On an occasion like above, most likely he was doing paperwork, sales calls, etc and just wanted to see if we NEEDED his help before going back to other essential work.

 

[harleybug88]

Just like that, eh? Walks up, and out of nowhere, with no one asking him anything or no one else saying anything, he just randomly blurts out, "I'm the boss, I don't have to help?" And "snidely," at that?

Sounds plausible.

And by the way, if I owned a company, and could afford to, I wouldn't be hauling sacks of grain (or cleaning out the mash tun) either. That's why you hire employees.

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.

If I was just starting out with only a few employees I would be right there helping.

I wouldn't expect that from him today!