Strange Brewing Company faces a trademark threat from a Massachusetts homebrew shop

IANAL, but trademark law in the US generally requires that you police your trademark so that it is not considered abandoned.

 

That's precisely it. Does the homebrew shop really think this is causing them any harm? No, of course not. But what happens when Strange Brewing takes off and starts to distribute in MA? Then the homebrew shop is in trouble if they didn't make any efforts to protect their trademark.

 

I thought trademarks were restricted to specific markets. Are beer supply sellers the same market as commercial beer producers/brewers? I don't think they are. Having said that, I just felt compelled to post in this thread due to my avatar.

PS I hope I don't get a cease and desist letter on my avatar now.

 

I usually fall on the side of trying to protect the trademark, after all these are real businesses involved. And though I still agree with the hombrew shop that they had a right to send the letters, I find their responses to very asshole behavior. They don't have to start making kits with the brewery, it was just a suggestion...an offer of goodwill. Plus, the real thing they wanted was a conversation with the hombrew shop owners to try and work it out. Instead they send an angry response saying

"I would earnestly request that you reconsider your position on this matter and advise me by the close of business on Friday, November 9, 2012, that you will agree to transition to a new name as soon as possible."

They never gave a position, they wanted to talk. They threw out one suggestion. Sure if it comes down to the brewery being forced to change their name, fine, but at least pick up the phone and talk like adults.

With that said, it also sounds like the brewery did not help themselves (according to the hombrewer's lawyer's letter).

"instead of attempting to resolve this matter amicably you chose to even further promote the infringing name of your business in a front section feature article in the October 12, 2012 Denver Post."

Sounds like a mess, time to let the high priced lawyers resolve it now.

 

I know that initially Tim Myers of Strange Brewing was incredibly upset when Left Hand Brewing rebranded their Jackman's Pale Ale to Stranger Pale Ale and had contemplated legal action against Left Hand Brewing.

That being said, I don't think this is something worth litigating. I hope that Strange Brewing and Strange Brew are able to come to a mutual agreement.

 

That was one of the sillier parts of the letter in my opinion. I'm assuming this is the story he's referring to (I'm guessing there wasn't multiple articles about Strange in the paper that day)

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_21753614/tapping-into-local-scene

That was published during GABF week. If the Post wrote an article about Strange and a couple other small local breweries during Denver Beer Week, that is not a case of Strange "promoting" themselves. When the reporter came around asking questions should they have refused to cooperate because they'd recently received that letter from Strange Brew's attorney?

While that is only one sentence from a long letter, making such a ridiculous accusation is very revealing to me about the good faith of the attorney and/or the homebrew shop.

 

thanks for linking the article. I didn't see anything mentioned about the hombrew store or the C&D. What did the homebrew store expect, the brewery to shut up shop the day they received the letter? They should have picked up the phone and talked like adults

 

Just my two cents ...

If I was Strange Brewing I would ignore all requests, their 1st mistake was acknowlegding they even received the letter. The letter should have been throw in the circular file cabinet especially if it was not a certified letter. The 2nd mistake they made was not filing for the name when they opened, they would have either beer approved or flagged and then perhaps picked a different name. 3rd mistake ... contacting them on their own and not from their own lawyer.

The home brew shop filed for "Strange Brew" not "Strange Brewing Company".

Other "Strange" in beer:

http://www.strangebrewtavern.net/index.html
http://strangebrewtavern.co/
http://www.strangebrew.ca/

Many coffee shops using the name as well ...

"Strange Brew" is limited to the sole filing here, note the disclaimer it is for "Brew" not "Brewing":

Word Mark STRANGE BREW
Goods and Services IC 032. US 045 046 048. G & S: Beer. FIRST USE: 19970601. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19970601
IC 035. US 100 101 102. G & S: Retail stores featuring beer and wine making supplies. FIRST USE: 19970601. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19970601
Standard Characters Claimed
Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
Serial Number 78907474
Filing Date June 13, 2006
Current Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Published for Opposition January 23, 2007
Registration Number 3227867
Registration Date April 10, 2007
Owner (REGISTRANT) Powers, Brian INDIVIDUAL UNITED STATES 41 Boston Post Rd East Marlborough MASSACHUSETTS 01752
Disclaimer NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE "BREW" APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN
Type of Mark TRADEMARK. SERVICE MARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator
LIVE

 

And the dozens of coffee shops using the name? I see at least 2-3 bars using the name as well.

 

Coffee and danish wouldn't violate either of the categories Strange Brew the homebrew store trademarked. G & S: Beer. G & S: Retail stores featuring beer and wine making supplies.

If the bars are marketing a "Strange Brew Tavern Ale" or selling homebrew supplies then they would be. If they're just using it as their name it wouldn't appear to violate either

 

IMO the owner of the homebrew shop is an idiot. He might sell homebrewing supplies but he clearly doesn't know his clientele or the craft beer market in general. If I was him I would've emailed/phones strange brewing and talked with them before even getting a lawyer. I wouldn't trust a lawyer as far as I could throw him with resolving a dispute amicably. They're lawyers for a reason, they like to fight and nowadays a lot of them are out for themselves because of the economy so a situation in which they're not needed anymore isn't something they're gonna be for.

If you ask me the homebrew shop's mistakes were hiring a lawyer before trying to talk it out themselves and then letting that lawyer answer in such an assholish fashion without again, picking up the phone to try and talk it out. I'm of the mindset that lawyers should be a last, not 1st resort but then again, I didn't grow up in this country.

The homebrew shop owner should also get to know the type of people that pay his bills a bit better. He decided to deal with this like if it was a cutthroat business world where normal business rules apply. If that were the case, beer would be much much more expensive because prices would be dictated by supply and demand. He's a ****** if he thought this would go over well for them with beer people. He's done more damage to his businesses rep than any microbrewery ever could. If I was a homebrewer and lived in MA, I'd make it a point not to buy from these people.

 

True but I was looking at "IC 032. US 045 046 048. G & S: Beer."

I would think that would be the sale of "beer" under their name, so if any of these cafes or bars are selling beer wouldn't it be a violation of the trademark?

 

So G&S Beer would mean both Goods: Beer (product name) and Service: Beer (restaurant providing the service name). Not just that the beer itself would have to be named "Strange Brew" It's a good point.

I bet there are trademark lawyers that would make a compelling case for both readings of it

 

Legality issues aside, It is (allegedly) a fact that Strange Brew (MA) and Strange Brewing (CO) have been mistaken for one another by customers and vendors. This alone should indicate some change should be made, from one side or the other.

 

The cease and desist is entirely routine in the business world, because trademark owners are obligated to defend their marks even under less confusing circumstances than these. My only problem with that is the lawyer's letter accusing the brewery of "deception" as if this was some attempt to mooch off of the LHBS's reputation rather than the obvious desire to pick a name they thought sounded cool.

If the brewery would have taken even the most basic steps to prevent confusion, I'd have a bit more sympathy. Looks like the owners decided they weren't infringing and would take their chances despite being aware of the trademark and the website strangebrewing.com. I couldn't care less who finally prevails, but it definitely serves them right for having to lawyer up to defend their choice. Perhaps they should have called their company something like West Denver Brewing d.b.a "Strange Brewing Company of Denver."

I see hot-headed people taking side with the microbrewery are now going around submitting false 1-star reviews of the LHBS to get even. That's contemptible douchebaggery, as would be false reviews of the brewer's beers.

 

If that was so either Cisco and Sysco would have had to change their name a long time ago.

 

This is an unfortunate scenario for the company that had the business name first. They've worked hard to grow it. Someone comes along and usurps the name to some degree and then the original name holder looks like a bad guy for doing what appears to be right.

This is why we have laws in place to protect businesses.

 

A food service company and an electronics company are not likely to be confused with each other by their potential customers, creditors and suppliers as has happened already with the two beer related Strange Brew companies.

 

Only one is a Strange Brew company. The other is Strange Brewing.

However, I do see those as being too close, unlike the Idiot v Idiot Sauvin situation, which wouldnt cause any confusion at all.

I wonder how far Strange Brewing would have to change their name to satisfy it though? Would Stranger Brewing be enough? How about Strange Brewing of Colorado? How about "People are Strange Brewing Company"? Steal from a song instead of a movie.

Edit: Or is that song instead of a different song?

 

He looks like a bad guy for his choice of tactics, not for trying to protect his trademark. Pick up the phone. Don't hire a lawyer that calls an offer to collaborate offensive and makes ridiculous and false accusations about "promoting" themselves by answering a reporter's questions. Don't go online and falsely accuse Strange of "launching a social media attack". There are ways this could have been handled that would not make him look like a bad guy.