Amazing response from the brewery.
http://beerpulse.com/2013/12/exit-6...ds-6-check-to-starbucks-after-cd-letter-2107/
http://beerpulse.com/2013/12/exit-6...ds-6-check-to-starbucks-after-cd-letter-2107/
The Starbucks-McDonalds-Marlboro honey lager sounds quenching, not to mention it cures all your cravings
Yet another reason to hate those greedy bastards. They make crappy coffee, sell it for way too much, and do their best to put every small business out of business. I thought they usually stuck to putting the local coffee shop out of business, but now they seem to be expanding.
No self respecting beer drinker should ever set foot in one of those places. And pour me one of those F Word brews while your at it.
If you're stupid enough to mistake a Starbucks sugar drink with coffee like flavor for a beer then you need to drink something else. Starbucks clearly has nothing better to do than to browse untappd. 3 check ins? How'd they even notice? Maybe this effort can be spent training their folks to stop burning the **** out of the coffee or over roasting the beans.
Sounded like he was ignorant to the fact that it was trademarked in the first place. I also know Starbucks like many corporations pay a legal team to do nothing but protect their trademarks and such. I did like his response to the letter. He obviously knew he had to change the name but at least he was able to poke fun of the multi billion dollar corporation some would consider evil.
Alright, here's the ultra-bummer devil's advocate take on it. Despite the fact that this is the epitome of David vs. Goliath in company scale, protection of trademarks is a requirement of holding the trademark at all. The question I pose to the anarchists of the bunch is, what if it were your trademark? Would you leave it alone, let people use it all they want, and then lose the trademark you paid so much money for? What if the trademark violator was a large coffee company infringing on a smaller brewery's trademark? Who's side are you on then? Maybe it's the whole concept of owning trademarks at all that is so unappealing to so many. It's so capitalistic.
I agree that this particular instance is over the top and the infringement was miles under the logical radar but I'm acknowledging that there is a threshold and certainly a reason a company must protect their trademark.
I wonder where the line is for most people. How big does a company have to get before they are labeled evil or faceless? If it's not a family owned company with 100 employees, then how many more does it take? Does the company have to be publicly traded such that a board's decisions are driven primarily by stock price impacts?
I wonder where the line is for most people. How big does a company have to get before they are labeled evil or faceless? If it's not a family owned company with 100 employees, then how many more does it take? Does the company have to be publicly traded such that a board's decisions are driven primarily by stock price impacts?
I wonder where the line is for most people. How big does a company have to get before they are labeled evil or faceless? If it's not a family owned company with 100 employees, then how many more does it take? Does the company have to be publicly traded such that a board's decisions are driven primarily by stock price impacts?
In fairness, I never said Starbucks was wrong and I'm hardly an "anarchist" by any definition. But we're talking about absolute stupidity if you think a straight up cup of sugar with the hint of coffee flavor is coming out of a beer tap. Again, I never said and didn't elude that Starbucks was wrong but since anyone who expressed even mild objection was deemed an anarchist, clearly I'm wrong or something.
... good on the brewery guy for having a sense of humor while also realizing he can profit more from the publicity than from his beer name.
In fairness, I never said Starbucks was wrong and I'm hardly an "anarchist" by any definition. But we're talking about absolute stupidity if you think a straight up cup of sugar with the hint of coffee flavor is coming out of a beer tap. Again, I never said and didn't elude that Starbucks was wrong but since anyone who expressed even mild objection was deemed an anarchist, clearly I'm wrong or something.
First, it wasn't even spelled the same so technically he isn't infringing up Starbucks TM. You can say that he was betting on people recognizing the inferred pattern but at what point is a word a company's? If I TM the word resume can I sue anyone applying for a job when I TM'd the word resume as in to resume(start again) brewing? I mean they're spelled the same way.
Secondly, I read this somewhere else and from what I remember he didn't name the beer the offending word. Several people had checked in on untapped and said that Exit 6's beer tastes like "the F word". I might be wrong on that though.
My biggest problem with ANY conglomeration is that at the rate we're going in several years I won't be able to type this response without infringing on someone's TM.
To me I gotta side with Starbucks they trademarked that stupid name and he attempted to piggy back off of it and figured he'd slip by with changing a letter.
Starbucks handled it like a corp. protecting its property and he acted like a child with his response.
Sounded like he was ignorant to the fact that it was trademarked in the first place. I also know Starbucks like many corporations pay a legal team to do nothing but protect their trademarks and such. I did like his response to the letter. He obviously knew he had to change the name but at least he was able to poke fun of the multi billion dollar corporation some would consider evil.
Right or wrong I think Jeff from Exit 6 played it very well. A small brew pub from St. Peters Mo is now being talked about on almost every news outlet. Exit 6 has been packed since the story broke, standing room only. Not bad for a $6 investment!
First, it wasn't even spelled the same so technically he isn't infringing up Starbucks TM. You can say that he was betting on people recognizing the inferred pattern but at what point is a word a company's? If I TM the word resume can I sue anyone applying for a job when I TM'd the word resume as in to resume(start again) brewing? I mean they're spelled the same way.
Secondly, I read this somewhere else and from what I remember he didn't name the beer the offending word. Several people had checked in on untapped and said that Exit 6's beer tastes like "the F word". I might be wrong on that though.
My biggest problem with ANY conglomeration is that at the rate we're going in several years I won't be able to type this response without infringing on someone's TM.
The question I pose to the anarchists of the bunch is, what if it were your trademark? Would you leave it alone, let people use it all they want, and then lose the trademark you paid so much money for?
It's not unreasonable to imagine a scenario where a coffee company collaborates with a brewery to make a stout. The point is that using the trademarked name makes it sound like the product is endorsed by the owner of the trademark.
I would never assume that some little brewery was endorsed by Starbucks but that's not the point.
Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Home Brew mobile app
Ten years ago I would have been all up in arms over this. Now, the story just reminds me of all the reasons I don't want to turn pro.
Enter your email address to join: