Discussion in 'Beer News' started by Nutwood, May 21, 2013.
Founder's All Day IPA, 3Floyd's Alpha King APA.... both start with "Al". I smell some litigation...
I find it really humorous how everyone is getting so worked up (rlcoffey in particular) over something they don't have any control over.
What i find even funnier is people choosing sides based on their opinion of how good each respective's beer tastes like.
Yes, that is my point, similar yet different. Can't we all get along?
I dont have to get worked up over things I control, because I control them.
On a somewhat similar note I just saw that Toppling Goliath is introducing a beer called Kentucky Breakfast Brand Stout. Ay carumba.
Now that seems like a bad idea.
IIRC, KBS is sold in Kentucky as KBS, because there is an issue with the name. I think its using the name "Kentucky" in a non-KY product.
THIS IS FUCKING DUMB. THEY LOOK COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
There's an issue with using the word Kentucky when the beer is not made in Kentucky.
Nice to meet you. No suicide, yet.
Was at Goose Island couple of years ago and they had "Beer Named Sue" on tap. Didn't see Yazoo getting their panties in a wad.
Actually they are calling it Kentucky Brunch Brand Stout. But they refer to it at KBBS.
Wow, that is a good example of the pot calling the kettle black.
It is a very risky choice ... that is pretty much what I was getting at.
Considering that more than just a few people have stated the logos look similar West Sixth might have a problem with that ... it does not take much.
Regardless ... bringing Trademark disputes to this level is dangerous, I hope West Sixth carefully weighed their options as all of what they have done to date seems risky IMO. I am not taking sides as I said earlier.
Aren't they required to do more than just find a few people to admit that there are some similarities in the logos? There has to be some kind of demonstration that there is a likelihood that the projected end consumer will actually buy product A thinking that it's product B, or something similar.
Yes, but I believe the majority side with West Sixth. I could be wrong.
Pretty sure that was a small batch, brewpub only beer...not made for distribution.
I think this image from the first page is really damning for any argument's that West 6th might come up with.
Think about it this way: If I started making cans of soda with an inverted Coca-Cola logo on it but different colors, would I be infringing on Coca-Cola's marks? Of course. If I made paper towels and had an upside-down Brawny man on it, would I be infringing on Brawny's marks? Absolutely. Even if it's unintentional, you can't just flip someone's trademarked logo upside down and start using it.
It is impossible to deny that the West 6 logo, when flipped upside down, is strikingly similar to the #9 logo. You can't defend that by saying it's a 6 and not a 9, because when you flip a 6 over it looks like a 9 and also just happens to look extremely similar to Magic Hat's 9. You could configure the West 6th logo a million different ways using the same elements and not have it look exactly like Magic Hat's logo when flipped over, but they didn't, and that's on them, not Magic Hat. They do not care about what your intent was when making the logo, the fact is that if you flip it over, it looks like Magic Hat's, and that's a trademark infringement.
Magic Hat is well within their legal rights to defend their trademarks and are obligated to do so if they want to keep them. They have proceeded to do so in the way that the law allows for and it shouldn't be held against them. If anyone in this thread built a business on their trademarked creations and found someone infringing on them, I guarantee they would do the exact same thing. It's why you trademark stuff in the first place, so you have a legal way of defending it when someone uses it. I call shenanigans on anyone who says they wouldn't sue someone who was infringing on their own trademarks.
Cerveciera Costa Rica is in business with Pepsi, oddly enough.
If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. It's the number six, not the number nine.
That's not the point. The point is that I could come up with 100000 different logos that have the character "6" in them that don't look exactly like Magic Hat's #9 logo flipped upside down. Unfortunately for West 6th, they made one that, when flipped upside down, looks exactly like Magic Hat's logo. Even though the intent wasn't to infringe on Magic Hat's logo, they still managed to do so, which still counts as a trademark infringement. Which is exactly why I can't flip Coca-Cola's label upside down and say "It doesn't say Coca-Cola, it says ɐloↃ-ɐɔoↃ" and expect to get away with it.
A 9 isn't a 6. Period. Not sure what is so hard to see that. If you turned it upside down, squashed the number down, made the star sign a # sign, removed teh "west sixth brewing company, change the color from green, white and dark blue green to orange and dark orange....
I mean, come on.
1. MH agreed to let them keep using 6, provided it was always accompanied by the text WEST SIXTH BREWING. A number of different branded items included the logo without the text, including some (e.g. a circular taster tray) that could clearly be used in any orientation, making the upside-down similarity between the logos absolutely relevant.
2. W6 is agreeing to 3 out of 4 now, but if you read through their letters you'll see that the change to the compass/star symbol is something that they initially offered to do in their very first letter, but then reneged on after MH (quite naturally) refused to give preemptive approval to a redesign without having seen it. Only after they reneged on that offer did MH file suit.
First letter from W6: "West Sixth will agree to remove the 'stylized compass design' from...beer and ale products."
Second letter from W6: "West Sixth will change the 'dingbat' design element to either remove it, change it, or replace it."
Final letter from W6: "West Sixth would like to continue using this background design element."
Making an offer, reaffirming said offer, and then reneging on that offer seems like the very definition of negotiating in bad faith, and I don't blame MH in the least for responding to this behavior with a lawsuit that similarly reverts to their original position of asking for everything in hopes of getting something.
EDIT: P.S. Earlier in this thread, I made a post bashing MH for suing immediately without trying to reach an amicable settlement outside of court, since at that point I had only heard W6's side of the story and they neglected to mention the exchange of letters. Now that I've seen both sides, I'd like to retract my initial assessment and apologize to MH's corporate overlords for maligning them without knowing all the facts. My years-long boycott of their products will continue, but not because I think they've handled this issue poorly. They haven't.
Option 1: say nothing and roll over and present themselves for MH to do what they want.
Option 2: Go to court and let the corporate lawyers of MH use the money to put them thru costly litigation that could likely have W6 end up closing their door.
Option 3: Go public to bring to light what is going on and hopefully public opinion will cause MH to compromise.
So...what option do you take??????
So explain to me how nine pound porter from Georgetown brewing infringed on their logo. They are bullies, plain and simple, with bigger corporate dollars behind them.
Option 4: Follow through on the reasonable compromise that they themselves originally suggested, and that MH seemed completely willing to accept before W6 reneged.
They'd already trademarked the number 9 and the pound sign for all purposes related to selling beer. Therefore, they had not choice but to defend that trademark when another brewer tried to make a beer named after the specific things they had trademarked.
Not evil, just business.
And once again, I'm not a fan of Magic Hat's beer or business. I just don't think there's anything wrong with protecting trademarks, because failure to do so once can mean the trademark is lost forever.
They are within their legal rights to defend their trademarks wherever they see fit. I honestly don't feel bad for a company that can't afford to defend itself in court. If you start a business in America and market products with logos, you are potentially opening yourself up to litigation for trademark infringements. It's on YOU to make sure that you aren't infringing and if you don't do your homework or don't understand how trademarks work, then you have set yourself up for failure. Just because a business is small doesn't grant it protections to use other peoples trademarks and it only takes 1 phone call to find out how much it costs to defend yourself in court if you infringe. You can spend a little money up front and have all of your stuff double checked by a competent IP lawyer to mitigate your chances of infringing, something that both West 6th and Georgetown may have wanted to do, or you can just throw it out there and hope no one sues you, but the choice is YOURS, and the blame lies on YOU if you infringe.
Like I said before, if I used one of your trademarks to sell my products, would you give up the mark or bring me to court? What makes Magic Hat any different?
Actually it was MH that reneged by bringing the lawsuit. There was compromises that were made and then 3 months later, MH files a lawsuit.
That is awesome.
Most activity we have ever had on our Facebook..
So the number 9 is theirs now and forever? There is nothing similar in the Georgetown and Magic Hat logo appearance.
Why waste time and money fighting in court when you could just brew more good beer?
Collaboration, not litigation. Magic Hat are douchebags.
Not to mention, thinking this is a good thing is a horrible example of beer advocacy.
There is a chasm of difference between flipping an identical trademark upside down and using it with different colors and observing that when one trademark is flipped upside down, there are some similar-looking elements with another trademark.
You say this:
You could configure the West 6th logo a million different ways using the same elements and not have it look exactly like the Magic Hat's logo when flipped over
And I can't do anything but shake my head and wonder what you're talking about. When flipped over, there are some SIMILAR looking ELEMENTS. Calling those two things "exactly" alike is so absurd that I can't even find the words to explain how absurd it is.
I agree that MH had the right (and obligation) to defend it's trademarks from infringement. The problem is that this is not an infringement except in the most liberal interpretation of trademark infringement.
Actually 3+1+2 = 6. So, West Sixth better watch out for ABInbev's lawyers next!
Not that I care, but West 6th had to approve and authorize the design it no matter what firm they used. In the end, it's the attorney's that come out on top...just like they always do.
As of the last letter, West Sixth had agreed to do 3 of Magic Hat's 4 demands. Three months then passed before a lawsuit was filed. The only source that is touting the "West Sixth reneged" angle is the PR firm that Magic Hat hired after seeing the petition that West Sixth released in response to the lawsuit. And the Magic Hat brand manager. West Sixth has even since directly responded to the PR article that Magic Hat released.
I have to ask: did you read the exchange of letters between the two legal teams. Because in those letters, it's awfully hard to find support for the idea that West Sixth suddenly about-faced on compromises that they had proposed.
Separate names with a comma.