Starbucks vs Exit 6 brewpub

[PDX_T]

Just business. They have to defend their trademark or it becomes invalid. Bad idea to name a product that similarly to a well known brand. You think you could market a Sevens Up beer with seven hop varieties in it just because it's not technically the same product? What they could have done instead of throwing a tantrum is use good business sense when choosing the name or work out a deal.

This is bad for all craft brewers.

 

[Hinorth]

The way I see it there is only so many names and words in this world before things just start to sound stupid and people shouldn't be expected to use or not use words just because some big corp. paid the govt. to "own" a word. You see this kind of thing in generic brands all the time and nobody cares. Sure maybe the brewers should have spent more time on a name for there beer, or name it something less clever and spend that time making a good brew.

 

[temple240]

First, it wasn't even spelled the same so technically he isn't infringing up Starbucks TM. You can say that he was betting on people recognizing the inferred pattern but at what point is a word a company's? If I TM the word resume can I sue anyone applying for a job when I TM'd the word resume as in to resume(start again) brewing? I mean they're spelled the same way.

Secondly, I read this somewhere else and from what I remember he didn't name the beer the offending word. Several people had checked in on untapped and said that Exit 6's beer tastes like "the F word". I might be wrong on that though.

My biggest problem with ANY conglomeration is that at the rate we're going in several years I won't be able to type this response without infringing on someone's TM.

You can't trademark just anything. There are laws that control what can be trademarked, what the trademark covers, and how it is enforced.

If you're concerned about trademark laws I'm sure there is plenty of informative and accurate information to be found via Google.

 

[Punity]

Starbucks made up the name. I also find highly unlikely that three random customers made up the same odd name that is only one letter off without some use by the brewery, how would they know that it was referred to as that.

 

[mattd2]

To me I gotta side with Starbucks they trademarked that stupid name and he attempted to piggy back off of it and figured he'd slip by with changing a letter.

Starbucks handled it like a corp. protecting its property and he acted like a child with his response.

Sounded like he was ignorant to the fact that it was trademarked in the first place. I also know Starbucks like many corporations pay a legal team to do nothing but protect their trademarks and such. I did like his response to the letter. He obviously knew he had to change the name but at least he was able to poke fun of the multi billion dollar corporation some would consider evil.

Right or wrong I think Jeff from Exit 6 played it very well. A small brew pub from St. Peters Mo is now being talked about on almost every news outlet. Exit 6 has been packed since the story broke, standing room only. Not bad for a $6 investment!

pretty much the way I see it was He didn't inteand to speel it differantly (I do believe that as the way he spelt it would be how I would spell it ), he was not ignorant that he was infringing a trademark as he was intentially naming his beer a word that anyone would reasonably guess would belong to the company that made it up and he did play this extreamly well... maybe too well that it seems like he might have anticipated Starbuck's response and used it as he had planned

First, it wasn't even spelled the same so technically he isn't infringing up Starbucks TM. You can say that he was betting on people recognizing the inferred pattern but at what point is a word a company's? If I TM the word resume can I sue anyone applying for a job when I TM'd the word resume as in to resume(start again) brewing? I mean they're spelled the same way.

Secondly, I read this somewhere else and from what I remember he didn't name the beer the offending word. Several people had checked in on untapped and said that Exit 6's beer tastes like "the F word". I might be wrong on that though.

My biggest problem with ANY conglomeration is that at the rate we're going in several years I won't be able to type this response without infringing on someone's TM.

No, technically it is infringing on the TM even though it is spelt differnt. And you cannot trademark words or phrase that are in common usage so no trademarking Resumé for you (and you spelt it wrong by the way - I probably got the accent wrong as well ). Insterestingly you can apparently trademark beer styles according to the NZ IP office and now no one in NZ can make a Radler

 

[Quadrupled]

I'm catching up on a few episodes of Brew Strong and today listened to their two hour Trademark Law episode. Funny thing (to me) is that the broadcast date is coincidently the same as when the Starbucks letter is dated.

It was a good episode for those who are interested in the specifics of the "why's" of a trademark dispute like this. For what it's worth to those who think Starbucks is bullying Exit 6, Jamil even said he has to ask other breweries to stop using names trademarked by Heritic Brewing Company.

http://thebrewingnetwork.com/shows/1037

 

[betarhoalphadelta]

The question I pose to the anarchists of the bunch is, what if it were your trademark? Would you leave it alone, let people use it all they want, and then lose the trademark you paid so much money for?

Depends on the situation, of course. But let's say I was a regional brewery in California and came up with what I believed to be a very unique and cool name for a beer, and started using the trademark symbol on my packaging (or even went through federal registration if it was important enough, which I'm *SURE* Starbucks did).

Let's say that I then learned that some small brewery in Maine was using the same name of a beer.

Here's what I'd likely do, assuming it was a brewery worthy of respect:

1. Officially send the cease and desist letter, as part of "defending my trademark".
2. Preface the sending of the letter by calling the brewery owner in question, explaining what I'm doing, so that they don't get all butthurt when the papers are served.
3. Try to find an amicable solution where I license the mark to them under terms where they officially assert my ownership of the mark, and where they have something on their packaging or elsewhere that publicly states that their product is not affiliated with mine.
4. Depending on the situation, the license will cost a reasonable fee or may actually be free.

I feel that solution will balance the legal requirements to defend my mark with the ethos of the craft beer market.

Now, if it's a brewery of a-holes, or if it's not being used by a brewery, or there's something else about the situation where I feel that licensing the mark will be disadvantageous to me, then it'll just be the cease-and-desist, rather than playing nice.

(And for the record, yes, I am an anarchist. But that's a different discussion!)

 

[redshift76]

It's not unreasonable to imagine a scenario where a coffee company collaborates with a brewery to make a stout. The point is that using the trademarked name makes it sound like the product is endorsed by the owner of the trademark.

I would never assume that some little brewery was endorsed by Starbucks but that's not the point.


Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Home Brew mobile app

I know of 2 breweries that have collaborated with coffee companies in my area. Bent Paddle brewing has a Cold-Press Black Ale brewed with Duluth Brewing Co. coffee and Sand Creek Brewing did a stout for The Coffee Grounds in Eau Claire, WI they call In-House Stout.

 

[jeffjm]

Ten years ago I would have been all up in arms over this. Now, the story just reminds me of all the reasons I don't want to turn pro.

 

[FastAndy]

Ten years ago I would have been all up in arms over this. Now, the story just reminds me of all the reasons I don't want to turn pro.

Being asked to stop using a another businesses trade mark is all the reasons you don't want to go pro?

 

[Cape Brewing]

Bobby mentioned the key here a few post ago (sorry if someone else did and I missed it). Trademark law REQUIRES that you defend your trademark. It doesn't matter if it is against Exxon Mobil or Jimmy John's Bar and Grill. If a trademark is "selectively" enforced it then becomes un-enforceable and the trademark falls apart.

If Starbucks didn't send the cease and desist, anyone could have then used the word... and Starbucks could do nothing to stop them.

I just went through this with Anchor as we had made a "Black Steam". We got the cease and desist letter and I was all sorts of pissed about it until it was explained to me that if Anchor hadn't taken action against us, they wouldn't be able to protect their trademark of "Steam" going forward.

Now... should they be able to trademark "steam"? That's a different debate. They trademarked "steam" and in order to keep the trademark they had to send us the letter.

 

[jeffjm]

Being asked to stop using a another businesses trade mark is all the reasons you don't want to go pro?

That. And insurance. And supply chains. And labeling. And distribution. And employee relations. And making sure there's enough handicap spaces in the parking lot. And zoning. And tax compliance. And regulations governing wastewater. And managing cost of goods sold. Etc, etc, etc.

Trademarks are just one more thing distracting you from making great beer when that's how you theoretically make a living. It's much easier to make great beer at home ;-)

 

[bob1852]

Bobby mentioned the key here a few post ago (sorry if someone else did and I missed it). Trademark law REQUIRES that you defend your trademark. It doesn't matter if it is against Exxon Mobil or Jimmy John's Bar and Grill. If a trademark is "selectively" enforced it then becomes un-enforceable and the trademark falls apart.

If Starbucks didn't send the cease and desist, anyone could have then used the word... and Starbucks could do nothing to stop them.

I just went through this with Anchor as we had made a "Black Steam". We got the cease and desist letter and I was all sorts of pissed about it until it was explained to me that if Anchor hadn't taken action against us, they wouldn't be able to protect their trademark of "Steam" going forward.

Now... should they be able to trademark "steam"? That's a different debate. They trademarked "steam" and in order to keep the trademark they had to send us the letter.

That sucks.

But did you send them $6.

Since "steam" related to beer is a product name based on a production technique, I guess they have a legitimate claim. Similar to SN's hop torpedo...

And come on Cape, we know you ......post a copy of your smart ass reply.

 

[Punity]

That sucks.

But did you send them $6.

Since "steam" related to beer is a product name based on a production technique, I guess they have a legitimate claim. Similar to SN's hop torpedo...

And come on Cape, we know you ......post a copy of your smart ass reply.

He probably owns this brewery in question as well. Throw a go pats at the end of that letter to Starbucks and its got Cape written all over it.

 

[Cape Brewing]

Real mature

 

[TheDudeLebowski]

Nah. Fritz is just making you his ..... you just have to have the cajones to stand up to him. Like these guys

http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/3818/92094/

I saw them just the other day in the packy. Then again its not on their website. Im smelling lost money by stc.

 

[Cape Brewing]

Fritz ain't making anyone his anything. He sold the brewery to the Skyy Vodka guys 3-4 years ago