Cerveceria Costa Rica (Magic Hat) Suing West Sixth Brewing

Consider for a moment that a less-knowledgable consumer might see one beer with a 9 and another beer with a similar-looking 6 and assume that there was a relationship between them.

The point is not that someone would accidentally buy West 6th when they were trying to buy Magic Hat (or vice versa), the point is that someone might think that West 6th and #9 are related products.

But it's ok, critical thinking is hard too.

 

The words "west sixth" right above the logo handles that problem. Why would anyone with critical thinking skills assume that any two numbers belong to the same brewery? Why arent they suing ABI over 312?

Im much more likely to assume that any psychedelic design is from Magic Hat than any number is. Because, you know, that is the constant in all their logos. Of course, I also know that many designers use psychedelic designs so I should verify first, before ignoring another Magic Hat product.

 

I wonder if Racer 5 is next in their sights if they win this lawsuit?

That one is even more like #9, in that the numeral is in the center of the circle.

 

The logo is an image, you can not add and image to and image or subtract one from the other, they depict numbers but they are an image. The human brain makes connections. Flip or mirror an image, the brain can still recognize the image and make the connection.

There are lots of fonts where the 6 does not look like an upside down 9, in this case it does. The font is not exactly the same but compared to all of the other fonts out there that could have been used, those two fonts are VERY, VERY close.

People have different opinions and if they see the connection that you don't and if you can't recognize that fact, then it says alot more about you than it says about them.

 

This thread shows a fascinating level of mental gymnastics by people who are absolutely sure the big guy is always wrong and the little guy is always right.

Face it: West 6th Brewing came out with this issue to rile up public opinion in a calculated and cynical move, and their customers who have a connection with the brewery (In fact, I'll postulate that one of you Kentuckians works for the brewery) and those who hate Magic Hat on a purely emotional level are arguing loudly and vehemently to muddle the issue. It's pretty simple to me: West 6th lied about all this. They're trying to engage us at an emotional level by misrepresenting the facts to drum up bias against a company that has them dead to rights. I'd even be willing to bet they shrewdly decided to do this so that when they change their logo, they make up the money it takes to do so by having the riled up fan base buy more of their beer.

Craft brewers are just as capable of being dicks as any 'faceless' corporation. Mark my words, we're going to see more of this manipulation by the new guys in the future. Why bother researching things when you can try get public opinion on your side after you screw the pooch?

Also, to those of you who think there's no way anyone can see the resemblance, you've chosen not to see it. When I first clicked on the West 6th page, I thought they were showing off the Magic Hat symbol first instead of their own.

 

It seems like you're being deliberately obtuse - it isn't hard to look at the two logos and see some obvious similarities between them. Yes, a 6 is not a 9, but I think that looking at the bigger picture makes it a lot more clear.

 

Indication of a common production source is one of Magic Hat's specific claims regarding the infringement of their trademark. I'd say it matters.

We agree it sucks, and I understand that, on a certain level, this is "just business". However, I still maintain that even if Magic Hat's actions are within the boundaries of what is considered legally reasonable, it's still ethically questionable. The suggestion that Magic Hat is incurring any penalties or loss of revenue or brand identity/goodwill because of West Sixth's logo is a stretch, and I think there are clues within Magic Hat's actual complaint that suggest this is more than just defending their trademark so they don't lose it.

But ultimately, it doesn't matter--they have the legal right to pursue this, and it will likely be determined by the courts or if West Sixth decides they can't afford to fight the battle and concedes.

 

Disagree. They are clearly in the same family of fonts, but within that family, they are miles apart. I broke it down in detail upthread somewhere. Almost every design element of the font is different (thickness of vertical elements, thickness of horizontal elements, curvature of loops, curvature of balls,etc).

Its pretty much the family of fonts you need to use if you are going to build the edge of the six into the circle.

From reading the correspondence back and forth, it looks like an agreement would have been reached if Magic Hat hadnt tried to claim absolute control over the number 6. West 6th refused to promise to never use the number 6 alone without words, and Magic Hat cut off communication and then sued. Now, that may not be the real story, but I think Magic Hat asked for WAY too much.

 

There are some similarities, I never denied that, I even pointed them out on an earlier page.

But the big picture is that they have way, way, way more differences that easily separate them. And in my engineering brain, a 6 is not a 9 is one of the biggest differences. Whenever possible, reduce any problem to math.

If that was the only difference, it wouldnt be enough. If it was a psychedelic design with a #6 in a circle with a star inside the loop of the six, I would have called West Sixth out on it last year.

Now, that would be extreme copying, but I dont see enough similarities to ever be confused.

I will say that until this issue came up, I didnt get the star on their logo. It makes sense as a compass now, but I think it failed as a design element.

 

Hold on now. I didn't quote West Sixth's third letter because that wasn't the point of discussion. If I quote something, I'll include the full context--I just wanted to make sure we were doing that for the first letter, since you had cited *part* of the wording.

I agree that the letters make it look like they hadn't provided design alternatives at that point. That's a big mistake on West Sixth's part, although I think the real mistake came in agreeing to remove/change the star in the first place. Especially after they made the initial case that the mark wasn't infringing on Magic Hat's mark. If I'm West Sixth, I'm at least looking into the possibility of new legal counsel. They've made what I thought was a pretty solid case against Magic Hat much harder do to the mixed signals and changing of position. I'm not sure if the letters leading up to the lawsuit will have any bearing on a ruling about whether the mark infringes or not, but I can see why Magic Hat finally decided to pursue that route instead of continuing to correspond.

However, I maintain that the very act of demanding West Sixth change their mark is overreaching and a thinly-veiled bullying tactic. They are defending it because they have a right to, not because it's the right thing to do.

 

If the letters have any bearing, then Magic Hat made a huge mistake in conceding that the cans arent confusing because of the "West Sixth" words above it. That would basically take the lawsuit down to tap handles and tee shirts.

However, I dont think the letters matter, its why both included the boiler plate language about how nothing in the letters concedes any rights or whatever.

 

This post is missing the point, however. The standard for trademark infringement is not two different marks having similarities. That's a ridiculously broad way of defining a trademark. This is why one of the basic tests for Likelihood of Confusion includes looking at the strength of the mark holder's trademark. Marks that use generic terms (and I think a number is pretty generic) are weaker than marks that use something specific and unique. For example #9 is much weaker as a trademark than say, Three Philosophers.

Now, West Sixth's trademark isn't particularly strong either, because it's a street name/number, but the point is that it's overreaching for Magic Hat to claim copyright infringement because in a highly specific and context-less review of the two marks, there are similar elements. Taken as a whole, the two marks don't resemble each other.

 

Well that explains somebody's defense of Magic Hat...they get paid...

 

Yawn. If you don't agree with a position, just explain it away as biased.

I have no loyalty to West Sixth or care if they remain in business or fail, and I have no ill will towards Magic Hat, outside of my distaste for their belief that West Sixth's clearly distinct logo infringes on their own logo. I actually will occasionally enjoy a #9 during the summer--especially when I'm somewhere that prohibits bottles.

The idea that Magic Hat has West Sixth "dead to rights" is laughable. If they did, I don't think they would have started out with a letter to West Sixth. I think they would have sent them a C&D letter or started with the lawsuit. I think they did the letters, not out of the kindness of their heart, but because they felt they had a better chance of success if they could just pressure the 1-yr-old brewery into conceding, because if it was left to a judge, there was a very real possibility that he'd assess their claim as overreaching and an expectation of overbroad trademark protection.

I do agree with your assessment that West Sixth made some mistakes and wrote some misleading things, and that now the public opinion campaign is the best option they have short of emptying their pockets for a legal battle, but don't conflate West Sixth's missteps with the idea that Magic Hat's trademark is being infringed per their claim.

And to people who insist they are confused and genuinely thought that the West Sixth logo is a Magic Hat product... good lord. You may want to stop admitting that. It's one thing to recognize similar elements within the two logos. It's quite another to look at that West Sixth logo and think that it's a Magic Hat product. That's absurd.

 

Now if West 6 turned out be Magic Hat, I don't mind, I don't mind
If the mountains fell in the sea, let it be, it ain't me

 

Last weekend, I reached into a cooler at the pool looking for a Diet Coke and grabbed a Coors Light instead. Damn silver bullets!

 

Edit: Link to ratebeer quote I mentioned: https://www.beeradvocate.com/ratebe...bullying-local-kentucky-brewery_234766_16.htm (2nd one down, by gkost)

 

I would love to side with West 6th, but I have this sick feeling that West 6th designed their logo intentionally knowing it could attract a law suit with Magic Hat. Well probably not, i don't know but just think about all of this national publicity for the "little" brewery (as well as the overall craft beer struggle over corporate big shots). I just have a feeling that something was intentional here...

I just briefly read others posts, I saw some people say these logos look "radically" different or something like that...are we serious?

 

Can't wait until some guy walks into your store and asks "why don't you have any magic hat” lol

 

Yes, some of the posts have been biased. Especially the ones that focus on Magic Hat's terrible beer. However, it's one thing to recognize some of the bias and quite another to discount all defense of West Sixth as the result of bias and prejudice against the big brewery.

I can't speak to what BAs, on the whole, do as it relates to their preference for how breweries should resolve legal disputes. I tend to agree that an informal approach is better than a lawsuit right off the bat, but that doesn't mean there aren't situations in which reaching out informally is actually advantageous for the person pursuing the claim. This particular case seems that way because of how disparate the overall logos are from one another. But yes, in general, without context, I would tend to argue that it's better to avoid the lawsuit. I also will concede that Magic Hat is in sort of a no-win situation here, because either way, they are the bigger brewery with much greater resources trying to force action upon a smaller brewery. However, I still contend that is a bed of their own making, since it's the pursuit at all of the trademark infringement that makes them a bully in this case.

My use of the factual descriptor of West Sixth as a 1-yr-old brewery is in no way a demonstration of bias. It's an observation of the FACTS, that the brewery being asked to change it's logo is new to the scene. How is that biased?

Ulterior motives matter, but not when it comes to deciding whether there is actual trademark infringement or not. I don't think West Sixth's behavior shows anything about their belief of how they would fare in a court battle. I think their actions clearly show that they don't want to spend the money to undertake a court battle AND they don't believe their logo is infringing, so they are making their case in the cheapest way possible. Also, you seem to think that changing the product is some easy process that doesn't incur a lot of costs. As a young brewery, West Sixth would not only have the cost of physically changing their product labels, but they would incur the much more damaging cost of having to start over with finding a recognizable branding scheme after they've only had a year on the market to establish some recognizability. It's an extremely risky proposition, and they are in a tough spot because they likely don't have the resources to fight the battle in court, but can't afford to just give in to Magic Hat's demands.

And yes, back to your original generalization about bias. I can see the similar elements. I think anyone with basic powers of observation can see that yes, both logos have an 8-pointed star/compass/dingbat/whatever. And yes, we can all see that in this font family, an upside down 6 looks like a 9 and vice versa. My point is that there is a chasm of difference between being able to identify similar elements within two logos and meeting the standard for trademark infringement. Just because every person on this thread can see those similarities doesn't mean that there is a legal Likelihood of Confusion basis.

So draw all the geometric connections you want. Your ability to connect those things is very different from the actual laws governing trademark protection. And *that's* the bottom line