Hearing Bell's Side

[philosofool]

So, Bell's is evil and trying to smack down the little guy. [Edit: for clarity's sake, this was supposed to be an ironic comment.]

Here's some food for thought:

(1) Bell's is not trying to stop Innovation Brewing from using the name Innovation Brewing.

(2) Bell's is trying to prevent Innovation Brewing from trademarking that name.

(3) Bell's is not suing in any way. They are not trying to collect any money from Innovation Brewing. Innovation insists on getting to trademark their name, Bell's is trying to prevent that (but not use of the name itself.)

For clarity's sake, it's important to understand that marketing and names which are not trademarked are still legally protected, i.e., I can't go start "Innovation Brewing" just because "Innovation Brewing" isn't a trademarked name--if someone else has prior claim, they have a legal groudn to stop me.

The reason for (2) is that Bell's believes IF they trademarked that name, it could compromise their ability to use a historical marketing slogans ("Bottling Innovation" and "Inspired Brewing").

Link:
http://www.mlive.com/beer/2015/03/5_things_bells_brewery_wants_y.html

 

[atom]

Well hell's bells, what you trying to sell?

 

[LandoLincoln]

Oh no! Bell's would have to stop using that pretty lame slogan on their bumper sticker!

 

[Jawbox0]

I'm sorry, but that's crap. A brewery, any brewery, is going to trademark their name and asking them to withdraw the trademark application is the same thing as asking them not to use the name.

 

[philosofool]

I'm sorry, but that's crap. A brewery, any brewery, is going to trademark their name and asking them to withdraw the trademark application is the same thing as asking them not to use the name.

This is horse****. Lots of breweries don't have trademarked names. You can't trade mark a place-based name (E.g. "Montana Brewing Company"), but there are tons of breweries with names like that.

 

[Highside]

Innovation would be free to use their name so long as they never tried to market outside of NC, yeah, what a deal. I can't believe they didn't jump right on that one.

 

[philosofool]

Innovation would be free to use their name so long as they never tried to market outside of NC, yeah, what a deal. I can't believe they didn't jump right on that one.

According to Lawyers of Innovation Brewing, who also asked Bell's to pay them money in order not to go to court.

 

[Highside]

Again, from Innovation...

"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"

 

[Teromous]

I think you might be late to the discussion.

 

[Pappers_]

According to Larry Bell, Innovation asked for a six figure settlement.

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

 

[LandoLincoln]

If I were Larry, I'd say, "screw it. It was just a stupid bumper sticker anyway."

No one's buying Bell's beer because of that bumper sticker.

 

[madscientist451]

It all just adds up to negative publicity for Bells Brewery.
A small husband and wife owned brewery want to get a trademark for a brand they've worked to build: Innovation Brewing. So then Bell's hires lawyers from Kalamazoo, Michigan and New York City and files a complaint with the trademark office that the trademark shouldn't be granted. They also engage a PR firm to help manage the negative reaction that rolls in.
Bell's Brewing has a right to oppose the trademark if they want to.
Beer consumers have a right to not buy a product for any reason, including what is perceived as bullying a smaller producer to basically abandon their brewery name for no logical reason.
Bell's should get this matter settled, basically drop their opposition to the trademark and in return, get an agreement that they can still use the phrase "bottling innovation since 1985".
Or maybe just drop the bottling innovation phrase and save the money they are going to spend on lawyers and put an end to the bad publicity this is generating.
I'm going to go brew some beer now, cheers to all.