Bells suing a small brewer

Yakima 728
Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
smcinco said:
Is this your FB post, Larry?

https://youtu.be/5SqDm0_GgfQ
Click to expand...

.

Is_This_Your_Homework_Larry.jpg
 
Sorry Bells. I "used" to drink your beers. I happen to be fortunate enough to live close enough to INNOVATION to have tried and enjoyed their exceptional brews. (I have decided they are my favorite micro, really good beers if you are anywhere close to Sylva, NC.) Really Bell's? These guys brew a fraction of the beer that Bell's brews. This is like BMC, big corporate bullies versus little guy battles. I am so dissapointed to hear about this law suit. No more Bell's for me untill I learn more about this BS. Hey Bell's RDWHAHB!! Or better yet, an Innovation brew! JM2C
 
sudbuddy said:
Here's the email I just sent Larry Bell:

Mr. Bell,

I was very disappointed to hear of your decision to sue Innovation brewing just because of a bumper sticker. You produced 310,000 barrels of beer last year, are in 18 states, and are very well respected in the craft beer community. I say community because that is what it used to be, but actions like this are sickening and cheapen the entire experience for everyone. In contrast, Innovation made only 500 barrels last year and are not available outside of North Carolina. Your decision to sue them because their BREWERY NAME uses one word from a bumper sticker you give away for free will likely put them out of business as the owners go broke fighting this useless legal battle. There is no way you can come out of this looking like anything other than a bully. Now you have sunk to the level of Tony Magee at Lagunitas, and I doubt that is how you want to be perceived. I hope that you see reason and stop this inane lawsuit. Until then, I have certainly had my last Bell's beer, and I will be spreading the word.
Click to expand...


Am I the only one that heard sad violin music while reading this? Give me a break man. Move out of daddy's basement and learn how the business world works.
 
My understanding is that you don't have to register a trademark with the USPTO for a slogan to be protected from infringement if you can demonstrate prior commercial use as an element of of your brand. The problem with not protecting your brand is that if you give an inch to one friendly, non-threatening party over something peripheral like "innovation", by your inaction, you risk being forced to accept another, unfriendly party taking a mile with something much more central to your brand like say "inspired" or images of bells, etc. We may question how politely they acted in defense of their rights, but we should understand why they are correct to do so.
 
In my experience, most of the time a lawsuit is not the first step. Usually you send them a letter, call from your lawyer, severed horse head, etc. first.

I'm curious to hear who was the big ol' meanie face during that process.
 
This stuff is just ridiculous, and I hope that our legal system someday comes to the realization that blatantly obvious or overly broad slogans or ideas should not be the property of any one company. It seems here that Bell's is trying to big-ball their way into exclusive rights of calling their beer innovative or inspired. In my opinion, no way should this be allowed. You see this in the software industry all the time, where individuals or companies patent such inspired ideas as 'a button on a web-log that you can press to give a post a +1 or -1.'
 
Update from Innovation...

"Yesterday, we offered Bell's another co-existence agreement to resolve this dispute, since Bell's management has indicated an interest in resolution via their many facebook and newspaper statements. We are going to sit back and wait a few days in hopes that cooler heads can prevail and an agreement can actually be reached. Fingers crossed.

To Clear Up Any Confusion:
Should this opposition have been filed? That is the question we encourage everyone to ponder. Public sentiment has forced Bell's into a defensive position advised by their consulting team: an outside PR firm, a New York City IP law firm and a Michigan law firm. And the result of their campaign insinuates that we are liars and that craft brew fans cannot muster the comprehension to stay focused on the merits of the action. We know better. This is the most intelligent group of consumers out there. So we want to take a moment to discuss the case itself.

A “run-of-the-mill” trademark dispute, to use Larry Bell’s own words, is one where a brand owner has a registered mark that clearly matches an infringer’s mark. Bell’s Brewery has 20 registered trademarks and 3 more in the same process as our mark. If someone files for an application for something like “Inspired Beer Co” we expect a run-of-the-mill dispute to be raised and resolved in a matter of days. But when an applicant files a mark that does not look like, sound like or mean anything close to “Inspired” then it’s not “run-of-the-mill” at all, in fact it is not even a dispute. As for an unregistered word used in a marketing slogan (see “bottling innovation since 1985”), the protection is almost non-existent. Think of how many words are used in a brewery’s lifetime in a marketing statement. There are probably thousands, over 30 years. If a brewery feels that it is part of its brand, it would have protected it. This is especially true when the brewery is adept at filing for trademarks, such as Bell's. That was not the case here. Like Bell's would do, we searched far and wide before selecting a brand name. And we are asking for the same protection that they have been afforded 20+ times.

In the early days of this dispute, when we were asked what our brand was worth, we told them a lot. We did not expect that to be used against us as proposing a settlement figure. Our brand was not for sale, and it's not for sale now. We fully believe we can come to an agreement with Bell's, and we will never ask them for compensation. An agreement would let both breweries use our existing brands going forward, because consumers are not likely to be confused.

Bell’s, we just don't think you should have filed it. We believe that it lacks merit, and the impact has been an unfortunate, costly, and lengthy heartache for all. Let’s settle it. We look forward to hearing your thoughts on our most recent coexistence agreement and truly look forward to a resolution."
 
I can see Bell's point. They should have trademarked it if they felt so strongly about it, but didn't. They feel forced to defend themselves this way. But they can suck hockey pucks after reading Ms. Bell's creatively twisted phrasing in that facebook post. They should have went to Innovative and asked for a free license to keep using their innovation phrase. IB might very well have done it. I hobe the ABA and other IB friends are filing amicus briefs.
 
Highside said:
. As for an unregistered word used in a marketing slogan (see “bottling innovation since 1985”), the protection is almost non-existent. Think of how many words are used in a brewery’s lifetime in a marketing statement. There are probably thousands, over 30 years. If a brewery feels that it is part of its brand, it would have protected it. This is especially true when the brewery is adept at filing for trademarks, such as Bell's. That was not the case here. Like Bell's would do, we searched far and wide before selecting a brand name. And we are asking for the same protection that they have been afforded 20+ times.

In the early days of this dispute, when we were asked what our brand was worth, we told them a lot. We did not expect that to be used against us as proposing a settlement figure. Our brand was not for sale, and it's not for sale now. We fully believe we can come to an agreement with Bell's, and we will never ask them for compensation. An agreement would let both breweries use our existing brands going forward, because consumers are not likely to be confused.

Bell’s, we just don't think you should have filed it. We believe that it lacks merit, and the impact has been an unfortunate, costly, and lengthy heartache for all. Let’s settle it. We look forward to hearing your thoughts on our most recent coexistence agreement and truly look forward to a resolution."
Click to expand...

This is so well said, I need to change my shorts.
 
Weezy said:
I can see Bell's point. They should have trademarked it if they felt so strongly about it, but didn't.
Click to expand...

I think, let me repeat, I think.....the issue is Bell's phrase isn't trademarkable. (because it is common language, or whatever the legal term is).

I think, and again, I think, Bell's is worried that if Innovation gets their trademark they could legally make Bell's quit using the slogan they've been using. So Bell's is asking the courts to not approve the Trademark since it may impact Bell's slogan in the future.

At least that's my understanding.
 
You'd think...but you'd be wrong. Common phrases can be trademarked. Paris Hilton trademarked "That's hot."
 
Larry Bell messaged me on facebook due to the fact that I created a "Larry Bell is a real dick" t-shirt. End result, I told him I wouldn't print the t-shirts but still called him a dick, told him im boycotting bells until this is settled and told him to let me know when he wants me to come brew a beer with him when this blows over.
 
treacheroustexan said:
Larry Bell messaged me on facebook due to the fact that I created a "Larry Bell is a real dick" t-shirt. End result, I told him I wouldn't print the t-shirts but still called him a dick, told him im boycotting bells until this is settled and told him to let me know when he wants me to come brew a beer with him when this blows over.
Click to expand...

Are you serious, Clark?
 
Too bad Ohio doesn't have anti-SLAPP laws. Yor tshirt is protected free speech. The anti-SLAPP laws make it difficult for people who'd sue you to win and permits you to collect legal fees for your defense.
 
harrydrez said:
Am I the only one that heard sad violin music while reading this? Give me a break man. Move out of daddy's basement and learn how the business world works.
Click to expand...
What a cute response. :rolleyes: Perhaps you should avoid the reply button for a bit since a good portion of this thread alongside various social media outlets exhibit similar sentiments from people who seem to feel the same and clearly that grinds your gears.

Just to note, I am very familiar with how business works and my daddy didn't have a basement.

On topic, I'm still seeing Bell's use "inspired" brewing on all brewery swag around here (towels, signs, stickers, glasses) and not innovation. I understand if the TM is granted then Innovation could force Bell's to stop using the term, but it seems to me they're not using it as much as they use inspired brewing. Perhaps I'm mistaken.
 
interesting...

Innovation and Old Ox both having their trademarks being contested by larger companies

future brewery owners should stay away from naming them "Sully", "Greenway", "Pacific" or "Shaw"

breweries.jpg
 
Hello said:
Well, while not black and white, there is no way that 22 hours can be considered a fair and reasonable amount of time to make such a decision. They were being asked to decide to basically re-brand their business overnight. Could their refusal be seen as a first legal step? If you're Bells and you want to draw attention away from being nothing more than a bully, then yes. However, I don't believe that it is a first legal step by definition, but to Bells, it likely looked like a veiled threat that they would see this play out in the courts before they re-branded their business. As a result, I can see a little of both sides, but I too would never be able to decide to re-brand my business overnight. If I had to make a choice in that timeframe, I would say no because it would have seemed like the better choice for my business.

For anyone who didn't know of Innovation, it's my understanding that they do have a bit of a following and their beers are fantastic. Their only downfall, if there is one, is that they're not smack dab in the center of Asheville where they can get maximum exposure.
Click to expand...

As usual, you never hear the whole story from either brewer. This 24 hr claim comes from the fact that Bell's was up against a deadline to file their objection. They both admit that they had been in discussions. If you are in discussions for close to a year and you know in 24 hrs a window closes you should not be shocked when they call you and tell you 24 hrs to decide. They actually had no obligation to call you at all.
 
TrustyOlJohnson said:
First Gila, the whole "Bells innovation.." Witty, I'll give you that. And Im asking a genuine question here because I can see there is something all of us can learn from this..

In the opposition filing presented by Bell's, its clear that "Inspired Brewing" is trademarked. Its also clear that, while the phrase "brewing innovation" has been used by Bells in the past, it has not been trademarked. How does that give Bells a valid argument to prevent Innovation from using it?? And if there is a valid argument, how does this affect the right to fight for and protect a businesses trademarks?
Click to expand...


Using it in business can grant them what is called a common law trademark. You do not have to register a trademark to own it. See the New Belgium vs Oasis action. The problem is you need to get a declaratory judgement to actually own it. It gets complicated but that would allow Bell's to actually sue over an infringement. In this case Bell's could have filed for that or even a trademark infringement lawsuit. Both of these would have been a much more expensive problem for Innovation. At this point if you feel that your possible common law trademark is being threatened you file an objection as the cheapest way to protect yourself. The bottom line is probably that Bell's registered trademark "inspired brewing" is a hard sell, but I will add not impossible. The claim of a common law trademark on bottling innovation is a pretty strong case. Not hard to convince me that Innovation Brewing and Bottling Innovation is confusing. Again not a slam dunk, but certainly a reasonable argument. Every new brewery should be aware of these problems. A local brewery being opened by a friend of mine has had to change it's name 3 times. Money was spent branding. The difference is my friend put on his big boy pants and realized that avoiding these problems is more important than a stupid fight. He never asked or received any money. He was very frustrated , but never blamed the other breweries.
 
madscientist451 said:
GilaMinumBeer said:
Perhaps I misread, it appeared to me that the document stated in line 10 that the opposed (Bells) "owns title and interest in the brewing innovation trademark".

Thus acknowledging the use of the words as a trademark by use of the word trademark instead of acknowledging it as a slogan.

Thus, if the words brewing innovation (despite being used with since 1985) are in fact trademarked then it does bolster Bells argument.

Bell's asserts in the opposition document that they started using the "trademark" brewing innovation since 1985, but they don't provide any information that states they received an official trademark.
From here, it looks like they put that in to bolster their claim, but under further scrutiny, it just looks like they trying to blow smoke.
Its just typical lawyer BS because their claim is weak.
Click to expand...

Google common law trademarks. You will find it is not just blowing smoke.
Click to expand...
 
bluehende said:
Using it in business can grant them what is called a common law trademark. You do not have to register a trademark to own it. See the New Belgium vs Oasis action. The problem is you need to get a declaratory judgement to actually own it. It gets complicated but that would allow Bell's to actually sue over an infringement. In this case Bell's could have filed for that or even a trademark infringement lawsuit. Both of these would have been a much more expensive problem for Innovation. At this point if you feel that your possible common law trademark is being threatened you file an objection as the cheapest way to protect yourself. The bottom line is probably that Bell's registered trademark "inspired brewing" is a hard sell, but I will add not impossible. The claim of a common law trademark on bottling innovation is a pretty strong case. Not hard to convince me that Innovation Brewing and Bottling Innovation is confusing. Again not a slam dunk, but certainly a reasonable argument. Every new brewery should be aware of these problems. A local brewery being opened by a friend of mine has had to change it's name 3 times. Money was spent branding. The difference is my friend put on his big boy pants and realized that avoiding these problems is more important than a stupid fight. He never asked or received any money. He was very frustrated , but never blamed the other breweries.
Click to expand...


Bluehende,
I appreciate your response..
I have no doubt that it has been a frustrating process for your friend..
 
bluehende said:
Using it in business can grant them what is called a common law trademark. You do not have to register a trademark to own it. See the New Belgium vs Oasis action. The problem is you need to get a declaratory judgement to actually own it. It gets complicated but that would allow Bell's to actually sue over an infringement. In this case Bell's could have filed for that or even a trademark infringement lawsuit. Both of these would have been a much more expensive problem for Innovation. At this point if you feel that your possible common law trademark is being threatened you file an objection as the cheapest way to protect yourself. The bottom line is probably that Bell's registered trademark "inspired brewing" is a hard sell, but I will add not impossible. The claim of a common law trademark on bottling innovation is a pretty strong case. Not hard to convince me that Innovation Brewing and Bottling Innovation is confusing. Again not a slam dunk, but certainly a reasonable argument. Every new brewery should be aware of these problems. A local brewery being opened by a friend of mine has had to change it's name 3 times. Money was spent branding. The difference is my friend put on his big boy pants and realized that avoiding these problems is more important than a stupid fight. He never asked or received any money. He was very frustrated , but never blamed the other breweries.
Click to expand...

Good points. In our case we had to drop the first company name that we chose after we had used it during our start up. We then had to drop a specific brand name due to the fact that when combined with our new company name, , shared words with another brewery. :/ We stopped that before it started, but they would have been in their rights to stop us using the name.

Intellectual property law is a funny thing and it is VERY important to remember that no matter how silly it may seem on the surface 1) no matter how small a matter, if you don't defend your mark, you lose strength, and 2) no company is going to throw money at a legal matter without reason
 
Moral of the story:
Better research your brewery name
If you think you have a good slogan, trademark it

Problem solved.
 
The "common law trademark" is interesting , but in this case, Bell's using the phrase "bottling innovation since 1985" may not prevent Innovation Brewing from receiving a trademark. The Trade Mark office examining attorney could find nothing that should prevent Innovation Brewing from getting the trademark.
 

Similar threads

JB_Brewing2
Bells loses trademark case.
Replies
2
Views
629
betarhoalphadelta
betarhoalphadelta
P
Hearing Bell's Side
Replies
11
Views
2K
madscientist451
madscientist451
M
Book Review: The Home Brewer's Guide to Vintage Beer / Let's Brew
Replies
0
Views
2K
midlantic
M
I
Seems Official - Northern Brewer/Midwest/AB Inbev/Budweiser/SAP/Miller
Replies
23
Views
3K
WaltStarr
W
Z
Let's Talk About Mad Fritz
Replies
27
Views
3K
pen15clubmember
pen15clubmember

Latest posts

Back
Top