• Please visit and share your knowledge at our sister communities:
  • If you have not, please join our official Homebrewing Facebook Group!

    Homebrewing Facebook Group

Trademark Disputes

Homebrew Talk

Help Support Homebrew Talk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
If it's legit, like the name is the same or the logo/packaging is the same, but not if it's some frivolous ********. Either way I just drink alcohol by so I don't really care
As a lawyer, all I can say is:

giphy.gif
 
The input of any of our resident lawyers would be appreciated:

Opposing a trademark is not saying "we should have that trademark", it's saying "we (and potentially others) have been using this term/name already and therefore it should not be trademarked", right? So for instance in this case CS isn't claiming only they are allowed to use the word "vielle", but rather that Trinity should not be able to trademark it and then C&D other breweries, in particular ones already using it? Or is these a flaw somewhere in what I'm thinking here?

Would be funny (read: pathetic) if Trinity was granted this trademark and then they subsequently went after Oud Beersel for using the term on their geuze.
 
The input of any of our resident lawyers would be appreciated:

Opposing a trademark is not saying "we should have that trademark", it's saying "we (and potentially others) have been using this term/name already and therefore it should not be trademarked", right? So for instance in this case CS isn't claiming only they are allowed to use the word "vielle", but rather that Trinity should not be able to trademark it and then C&D other breweries, in particular ones already using it? Or is these a flaw somewhere in what I'm thinking here?

Would be funny (read: pathetic) if Trinity was granted this trademark and then they subsequently went after Oud Beersel for using the term on their geuze.
As a lawyer, all I can say is:

giphy.gif
 
The input of any of our resident lawyers would be appreciated:

Opposing a trademark is not saying "we should have that trademark", it's saying "we (and potentially others) have been using this term/name already and therefore it should not be trademarked", right? So for instance in this case CS isn't claiming only they are allowed to use the word "vielle", but rather that Trinity should not be able to trademark it and then C&D other breweries, in particular ones already using it? Or is these a flaw somewhere in what I'm thinking here?

Would be funny (read: pathetic) if Trinity was granted this trademark and then they subsequently went after Oud Beersel for using the term on their geuze.

There's a whole bunch of reasons a trademark can be opposed (there are absolute grounds and relative grounds and then a whole bunch of other grounds)...but yes, you can oppose a trademark not because you want it, but because you don't think the applying party should have it. I've got a really good friend from law school that does IP law and specifically works with breweries, I should try to get him in here to answer some questions about the process.
 
Does this count?


(Link to media)


Somehow I don't think these guys got permission from Capcom for this. Those are the actual labels, btw:


(Link to media)


In the early 2010s some brewery made an ipa with Godzilla on the label. Whoever owns the rights to Godzilla slapped it right off their label. I expect Capcom will do the same.
 
All these video game/Star Wars themed cans are intriguing to me. I think the breweries think that since they only sell them at the brewery and they don't go into distribution that they're safe. I kinda doubt it.

Oh! This is a fun one.

Fremont Brewing Company (Seattle) --- Ferment Brewing Company (Hood River).

Not confusing at all. Nope. Doesn't mess with your eyes.

In the early 2010s some brewery made an ipa with Godzilla on the label. Whoever owns the rights to Godzilla slapped it right off their label. I expect Capcom will do the same.

There is a chain of import/retro video game stores in Seattle called Pink Gorilla. They used to be called Pink Godzilla but then Toho threatened to sue them for everything they had.
 
All these video game/Star Wars themed cans are intriguing to me. I think the breweries think that since they only sell them at the brewery and they don't go into distribution that they're safe. I kinda doubt it.

Oh! This is a fun one.

Fremont Brewing Company (Seattle) --- Ferment Brewing Company (Hood River).

Not confusing at all. Nope. Doesn't mess with your eyes.



There is a chain of import/retro video game stores in Seattle called Pink Gorilla. They used to be called Pink Godzilla but then Toho threatened to sue them for everything they had.
I was pretty shocked no one got in trouble for this release months ago at B52 Brewing near Houston:

ahoizlfzv3w01.jpg


Up close it was pretty obviously a screen capture from a DVD, lol.
 
"Obert told SF Gate that Seven Stills was actually expecting the letter (though presumably the puns were unexpected), and that the cease and desist would be honored. The beer will get its release Thursday with a different label."
I guess I should have said
INRAT.

So seven stills did an instagram post about 6 weeks ago to seek some publicity while having another label ready to go?

Makes sense. Awful brewery. Awful beer.

Fuckchops
 
I guess I should have said
INRAT.

So seven stills did an instagram post about 6 weeks ago to seek some publicity while having another label ready to go?

Makes sense. Awful brewery. Awful beer.

Fuckchops

Seems so. I must say that Fast Food Corps handle these situations and their social media beefs better than any brewery ever.
 
I am not a fan of giving Seven Stills any coverage, but I hope they had to scrap this release.

https://www.thrillist.com/news/nation/in-n-out-seven-stills-brewery-cease-and-desist-letter-puns

“This was the fastest we’d ever got a cease and desist from somebody,” Tim Obert, co-owner of Seven Stills, told KPIX. “They sent us that C&D basically the next day.”

One of these days, someone's gonna get fed up with all this and have a great case for willful infringement.
 
All these video game/Star Wars themed cans are intriguing to me. I think the breweries think that since they only sell them at the brewery and they don't go into distribution that they're safe. I kinda doubt it.
That makes some sort of sense, but the beer in question did hit distro - that's how I first found out about it.

Either way I'm amazed. I don't know whether it's brazen linestepping or just plain ignorance, but it's still fascinating.
 
That makes some sort of sense, but the beer in question did hit distro - that's how I first found out about it.

Either way I'm amazed. I don't know whether it's brazen linestepping or just plain ignorance, but it's still fascinating.

The label reminds me of the bootleg action figures you see at a swap meet.
 
The “It’s Not Normal” phrase?

It’s been their catchphrase and on their bottles/caps for at least a decade.

Is FFF looking to expand distribution into California? Unless that's the case this is stupid. It's still stupid but I'm not a lawyer so what do I know.
 
045leTV.jpg


The Veil announced a can release a couple days ago with Bart Simpson on the art(along with a bunch of merch with the same graphic), but got C&D’d pretty quickly.

Already renamed and relabeled for today’s release.

 
Last edited:
Back
Top