This blog gives a rundown of the trademark cases in beer (& other booze categories) in 2015. I'd only heard of a few of these cases, but some of the higher profile parties include: -Allagash (vs. a jellymaker) -Brooklyn (vs. brooklynbrews.com) -Boston (over the rights to Boston 2024) -Dogfish Head (vs. a hunting site) -Great Divide (vs. a VA pub) -Bell's (vs. Innovation Brewing) -Lagunitas (vs. Sierra Nevada) -Odell (vs. Mercenary Brewing) -North Coast (vs. not 1 but 2 distilleries) -Long Trail (vs. a meadery) -Flying Dog (vs. MI Liquor Control) -Full Sail (vs. Bird Brain Brewing) -Summit (vs. Grand Lake Brewing) -and surprise - Anheuser-Busch (vs. 2 beverage companies) http://www.trademarkandcopyrightlawblog.com/2015/12/a-trademark-year-in-wine-and-beer-2015-our-holiday-buyers-guide-to-disputed-beverages/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed: trademarkandcopyrightlawblog/wsUG (Trademark & Copyright Law Blog)
Similar, but related in an inverse fashion, on more than one occasion I have done a double take at "Dark Horse" wine. I would think that both parties know about the other one but are either mature enough to know that they aren't in competition or maybe they simply don't feel bothered by having the same name. In any case kudos to both for not filing suit. Now I just hope my post on the subject doesn't set something off.....
Can't forget the classic dogfish vs pizza boy..tho Resulting in....well a questionable response from one of the party's involved... Whatever did ever happen with that Punkin-pumpkin thing?
I assume these were actual filings. Imagine how many more were taken care of in this manner without an actual filing.
I'd look into the Dogfish Head vs. a hunting site one, but the reality of it would probably ruin the absurd scenario going on in my imagination at the moment.
you prompted me to search.....here is the synopsis. DOGFISH Beer Dogfish Head Marketing held a registered trademark for DOGFISH HEAD in connection with beer and beer-related goods and services. Dogfish maintains a website at <dogfish.com>, but it also wanted <dogfish.net>, which was being used to provide links to hunting sites. After Dogfish filed a UDRP complaint, a National Arbitration Forum panel found that the domain was confusingly similar to Dogfish’s mark. However, there was no evidence that the registrant was targeting Dogfish’s customers or providing beer-related links, nor was there evidence that the registrant made a habit of buying up domain names with brand marks. Therefore, there was insufficient proof of bad faith and the transfer of the domain was denied. Dogfish appears to have purchased the domain from the registrant since then. Dogfish Head Marketing, LLC v. Steitieh, 2015 NAFDD LEXIS 559 (NAF May 27, 2015).
it'll only continue to grow in the coming years..honestly there's only so many witty beer names people can come up with, and with the growing distribution range it's only a matter of time before some of these regional breweries start crossing paths.
