Bells suing a small brewer

[GilaMinumBeer]

"Hell, Bell's won't even miss a couple hundred thousand dollars...".

Not sure that is what is going down, but I've seen it happen before.

Oh, I know it happens. And I am certain the other side has a differing perspective. And yet, I find it far less frustrating than the general mood of this thread.

Point is, no-body knows what is really going down other than Bells went after a smaller brewery and that was enough to foolishly rush into derogatory emails and collaborating a boycott.

And worse, EVEN IF it was going down as assumed IT'S THEIR FVCKING RIGHT to take action. Something each and every one here would fight tooth and nail to protect if they were in the same situation.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

Well well well, looks like maybe Bell's ISN'T the ruthless, bullying, corporate tyrant that the pitchfork-wielding mob portrayed them to be. How does that square with the rush-to-judgement, knee-jerk, anti-capitalist narrative the 99% Occupier know-it-all Millennials preach?

Now they'll scream that Bells should pay because they can afford it. For the greater good of CRAFT!

 

[Homercidal]

Go back one page in this thread...:cross:

This thread updates too fast... :smack:

 

[ArkotRamathorn]

So a small company is being asked to take back their trademark application for something that *would* be their trademark, their company name, by a bigger company, for something that is *not* their trademark...

If I was the smaller company, I wouldn't take back my application for a trademark. Why should they? The trademark would be part of their entire logo, they take back their trademark application and now they can't defend against *anyone* taking something thats part of their entire branding scheme.

Yes, we aren't seeing the entire story here. Yes, they didn't ask Innovation brewing to change their name, but did they ask them to take back a trademark application that would allow Innovation Brewing to legally defend their brand in court or pursue litigation against those that infringe? Yes, of course Innovation Brewing is going to tell them to stuff it.

 

[mcartt11]

When I read all these types of stories and see the comments, I always go back to my dad telling me there was two sides to every story and the truth was somewhere in between. In the end, I just think people will believe what they want to believe.

 

[Ridire]

So a small company is being asked to take back their trademark application for something that *would* be their trademark, their company name, by a bigger company, for something that is *not* their trademark...

If I was the smaller company, I wouldn't take back my application for a trademark. Why should they? The trademark would be part of their entire logo, they take back their trademark application and now they can't defend against *anyone* taking something thats part of their entire branding scheme.

Yes, we aren't seeing the entire story here. Yes, they didn't ask Innovation brewing to change their name, but did they ask them to take back a trademark application that would allow Innovation Brewing to legally defend their brand in court or pursue litigation against those that infringe? Yes, of course Innovation Brewing is going to tell them to stuff it.

This is not quite accurate, assuming Bell's claim to have offered to enter into a "mutual existence agreement" is correct. If this is the case, the companies would, presumably, both be allowed to use the names/logos/slogans that they currently use, without taking away the rights of the other.

If this is what Bell's offered, and the other brewery declined, it sounds like the little guy thought it bought the winning lottery ticket and is dead set on cashing it.

EDIT: but who knows what the terms of that offered agreement were. Bottom line, nobody posting here knows what is going on or why. No boycotting for me based on this ridiculous speculation.

 

[blizz81]

Point is, no-body knows what is really going down

This, in general on any of these "beer morality" cases. But some people love to hate and will latch on to either side.


One thing I do know is how delicious or not delicious I find each specific beer I drink, and how much I want to drink more of it.


(That's not true - I can't justify that belief. I could be living in a Matrix-type world where my sensory perceptions are being controlled. BELLS!!!!)

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

This, in general on any of these "beer morality" cases. But some people love to hate and will latch on to either side.


One thing I do know is how delicious or not delicious I find each specific beer I drink, and how much I want to drink more of it.


(That's not true - I can't justify that belief. I could be living in a Matrix-type world where my sensory perceptions are being controlled. BELLS!!!!)

This is the point in this thread where, like a Mel Brooks film, the mob becomes offended that they didn't get to see a beheading.

 

[Disintegr8or]

Well well well, looks like maybe Bell's ISN'T the ruthless, bullying, corporate tyrant that the pitchfork-wielding mob portrayed them to be. How does that square with the rush-to-judgement, knee-jerk, anti-capitalist narrative the 99% Occupier know-it-all Millennials preach?

4. Over the last year, we have offered co-existence agreements and have offered to pay for their legal fees. We tried to find solutions that would work for both of us. Their response was to ask for an exorbitant amount of money and we did not feel that was a collaborative solution.

Sounds to me like Bell's wanted them to change their name. I would imagine that Innovation Brewery wanted money to pay for their re-branding after they spent the last years making a name for themselves as "Innovation Brewing"

 

[wardens355]

Bell's wanted them to change their name. I would imagine that Innovation Brewery wanted money to pay for their re-branding after they spent the last years making a name for themselves as "Innovation Brewing"

One of the posts you quoted stated that they were not requesting a name change, but wanted to prevent them from trademarking Innovation Brewing.

 

[Ridire]

Sounds to me like Bell's wanted them to change their name. I would imagine that Innovation Brewery wanted money to pay for their re-branding after they spent the last years making a name for themselves as "Innovation Brewing"

That is not at all what it sounds like to me. What it sounds like to me, based on the suggestion of a co-existence agreement, is that Bell's said "we have no problem with your name, so long as we have assurances that you will not one day sue us to claim that our slogan infringes upon your trademark". That is what a co-existence agreement is all about. Everyone has the right to use their brand/logo/name/slogan just as they always have, and the other side has no right to claim it is a violation of their rights.

If this is really what Bell's suggested (assuming the agreement was reasonable), and offered to pay Innovation's legal costs to get it done, then I think the wrong party is being demonized here.

But, again, we don't know the nitty-gritty details.

 

[JonM]

That is not at all what it sounds like to me. What it sounds like to me, based on the suggestion of a co-existence agreement, is that Bell's said "we have no problem with your name, so long as we have assurances that you will not one day sue us to claim that our slogan infringes upon your trademark". That is what a co-existence agreement is all about. Everyone has the right to use their brand/logo/name/slogan just as they always have, and the other side has no right to claim it is a violation of their rights.

That's exactly what it sounds like to me.

 

[drainbamage]

The Magic Hat/West 6th debacle was referenced earlier, this is looking very similar:

A big brewery quietly approaches a small brewery about a perceived intellectual property conflict...probably not a life-or-death issue, but a conflict nonetheless. The small brewery gives them the finger. The big brewer tries again to compromise, and the small one refuses. The big brewer resorts to formal legal action. The small brewer takes the matter to social media, knowing the masses will rally behind the "little guy". Butthurt ensues.

The truth is likely somewhere between the 2 stories. I'm not rushing to boycott anyone just yet.

 

[JonM]

And (it has been a long time since Intellectual Property class) but the Lanham Act allows statutory damages - that is, for every instance of trademark infringement, the trademark holder can get up to something like $10,000. In other words, for every Bell's bumper sticker, T-shirt, etc. that says "innovation" on it, Innovation could, in theory at least, get $10K from Bell's. I'd say Bell's is pretty darn smart for keeping their eyes on the horizon like this.

 

[TrustyOlJohnson]

This lawsuit has arisen because Innovation Brewing is using the word "Innovation" as their name and the word "innovation" was once used on a bumper sticker by Bells. Supporting Bells efforts here is tantamount to encouraging Bell's efforts to sue other breweries for using the word "brewing" in trademark applications as well. Simple logic shows this for what it is... A frivolous lawsuit by a company with the financial means to do so with no bearing. Nice Facebook post Bell's, but I'm not buying it. Doesn't pass the common sense smell test.

 

[Ridire]

This lawsuit has arisen because Innovation Brewing is using the word "Innovation" as their name and the word "innovation" was once used on a bumper sticker by Bells. Supporting Bells efforts here is tantamount to encouraging Bell's efforts to sue other breweries for using the word "brewing" in trademark applications as well. Simple logic shows this for what it is... A frivolous lawsuit by a company with the financial means to do so with no bearing. Nice Facebook post Bell's, but I'm not buying it. Doesn't pass the common sense smell test.

Absolutely incorrect. There is no lawsuit. Bell's isn't saying "Innovation" cannot be used in a brewery name. Bell's is merely saying that a brewery named Innovation cannot come along and tell Bell's that they can no longer use their slogan.

This has gotten so misconstrued it is ridiculous.

 

[JonM]

Absolutely incorrect. There is no lawsuit. Bell's isn't saying "Innovation" cannot be used in a brewery name. Bell's is merely saying that a brewery named Innovation cannot come along and tell Bell's that they can no longer use their slogan.

This has gotten so misconstrued it is ridiculous.

I think it's more than that - I think Bell's is asking that Innovation not sue Bell's for trademark infringement after they get their trademark. As I mentioned above, each (seriously- EACH) bumper sticker that says "innovation" on it could subject Bell's to something like a $10,000 statutory damage award. Does Bell's have a couple hundred bumper stickers? Probably. That could be real money.

 

[Teromous]

Talk of trademark infringement always reminds me of this.

 

[Ridire]

I think it's more than that - I think Bell's is asking that Innovation not sue Bell's for trademark infringement after they get their trademark. As I mentioned above, each (seriously- EACH) bumper sticker that says "innovation" on it could subject Bell's to something like a $10,000 statutory damage award. Does Bell's have a couple hundred bumper stickers? Probably. That could be real money.

That is really what I meant by "...that a brewery named Innovation cannot come along and tell Bell's that they can no longer use their slogan".

EDIT: and, frankly, Bell's version of this sounds much more plausible to me than does the original story.

 

[72hw]

Could be a three way split if Cal Poly Pomona catches wind of this...

https://www.facebook.com/InnovationBrewWorks

Just sayin...

 

[ArkotRamathorn]

I think it's more than that - I think Bell's is asking that Innovation not sue Bell's for trademark infringement after they get their trademark. As I mentioned above, each (seriously- EACH) bumper sticker that says "innovation" on it could subject Bell's to something like a $10,000 statutory damage award. Does Bell's have a couple hundred bumper stickers? Probably. That could be real money.

Wouldn't these all of been done prior to Innovation Brewing becoming a company and before the trademark was granted? How could they sue Bell's for infringement when the infringing couldn't have existed until the trademark was granted.

 

[Disintegr8or]

That is not at all what it sounds like to me. What it sounds like to me, based on the suggestion of a co-existence agreement, is that Bell's said "we have no problem with your name, so long as we have assurances that you will not one day sue us to claim that our slogan infringes upon your trademark". That is what a co-existence agreement is all about. Everyone has the right to use their brand/logo/name/slogan just as they always have, and the other side has no right to claim it is a violation of their rights.

If this is really what Bell's suggested (assuming the agreement was reasonable), and offered to pay Innovation's legal costs to get it done, then I think the wrong party is being demonized here.

But, again, we don't know the nitty-gritty details.

Wow, OK I guess I was way off. :fro:

 

[JonM]

Wouldn't these all of been done prior to Innovation Brewing becoming a company and before the trademark was granted? How could they sue Bell's for infringement when the infringing couldn't have existed until the trademark was granted.

It apparently wasn't. Innovation applied for a trademark, Bell's (at least according to their statement) asked them to form a coexistence agreement, Innovation said "f*** you, pay me," then Bell's asked them to withdraw the trademark application, and that's where the dispute lies.

 

[TrustyOlJohnson]

Not only is this about ANY brewery using the word "Innovation", it is also about ANY brewery using the word "Inspired". And every article I have read publicly available states that it is about Innovations use of the word as their name.... This is reminiscent of Bells suit against a brewery over the use of a similar copper bell as part of their advertising. If I could read the actual filing, then I would be able to comment on that. I value having as complete information as a person can, and reading beyond this posted article and thread, its pretty clear that Bells fbook post is deceiving. Realistically, at what point would we see Innovation brewing pursuing legal action against Bells for Bells use of a bumper sticker advertising slogan that was used a while ago and is not a part of the Bells brand? In 10-15 years?? Highly unlikely

 

[TrustyOlJohnson]

It apparently wasn't. Innovation applied for a trademark, Bell's (at least according to their statement) asked them to form a coexistence agreement, Innovation said "f*** you, pay me," then Bell's asked them to withdraw the trademark application, and that's where the dispute lies.

Im an open minded person. You say apparently. I havn't found any place to indicate that. Other than Bell's statement, Id like to see information elsewhere.

 

[Ridire]

Im an open minded person. You say apparently. I havn't found any place to indicate that. Other than Bell's statement, Id like to see information elsewhere.

I have also found no court case in which a lawsuit has been filed. I'd like to see that information. If Bell's intent were to block the name from being used, it seems a court case, seeking an injunction, would be the way to do that. They wouldn't merely block the Trademark registration, as blocking the Trademark application would not prohibit Innovation from using the name...just from preventing others (such as Bell's) from using it. This is why I say Bell's version is more plausible.

EDIT: also, such a law suit would be frivolous and I don't think Bell's is in the habit of pissing away tens of thousands of dollars to buy itself negative publicity. It just doesn't add up, the way Innovation is making it sound.

 

[mcartt11]

The more I read, the more this sounds like a marketing strategy by the small brewer. Unless Bell's Facebook post is a complete fabrication, I am not really seeing how Bell's benefits by taking this to court instead of keeping it as quiet as possible.

 

[Ridire]

Not only is this about ANY brewery using the word "Innovation", it is also about ANY brewery using the word "Inspired". And every article I have read publicly available states that it is about Innovations use of the word as their name.... This is reminiscent of Bells suit against a brewery over the use of a similar copper bell as part of their advertising. If I could read the actual filing, then I would be able to comment on that. I value having as complete information as a person can, and reading beyond this posted article and thread, its pretty clear that Bells fbook post is deceiving. Realistically, at what point would we see Innovation brewing pursuing legal action against Bells for Bells use of a bumper sticker advertising slogan that was used a while ago and is not a part of the Bells brand? In 10-15 years?? Highly unlikely

So, I say to you, "let me do this thing that gives me the right to sue you for millions of dollars one day...but I'll never do it...", and you just say, "OK, no problem. We're all just friendly brewers here"?

Not in the real world.

 

[TrustyOlJohnson]

http://www.beeradvocate.com/communi...-trademark-dispute-with-bells-brewery.266531/

 

[rmyurick]

I'm not surprised. My experience with Bell is that he is arrogant and "entitled".

 

[TrustyOlJohnson]

So, I say to you, "let me do this thing that gives me the right to sue you for millions of dollars one day...but I'll never do it...", and you just say, "OK, no problem. We're all just friendly brewers here"?



Not in the real world.

While I see this perspective as valid, the challenge is that, even though we have developed this train of thought here, I cant see any where else that this is supported. Maybe this is the legal threat that Bells is concerned about, and I understand that they dont want this played out publicly, but its a lil bit late for that. Its already being played out publicly and its giving them, and not Innovation, a black eye.

 

[JonM]

I have a law degree and my undergrad degree is in public relations. Here's what I see here, reading between the lines:

Bells' sought to protect itself from future trademark infringement claims by Innovation, as described above by me and by Ridire. Uninformed reporters at the Detroit Free Press and some online bloggers don't understand the Lanham Act, miss the subtleties of what's going on here, and run "Goliath picks on little David!" stories, people on HBT, BA, etc. lose their collective minds and call Bell's a bully and now we have a full-blown media s**storm, which Bell's is trying to remedy. Hopefully a big paper like the New York Times or Wall Street Journal will address this and give us the whole story.

 

[Ridire]

I have a law degree and my undergrad degree is in public relations. Here's what I see here, reading between the lines:

Bells' sought to protect itself from future trademark infringement claims by Innovation, as described above by me and by Ridire. Uninformed reporters at the Detroit Free Press and some online bloggers don't understand the Lanham Act, miss the subtleties of what's going on here, and run "Goliath picks on little David!" stories, people on HBT, BA, etc. lose their collective minds and call Bell's a bully and now we have a full-blown media s**storm, which Bell's is trying to remedy. Hopefully a big paper like the New York Times or Wall Street Journal will address this and give us the whole story.

Same educational background and same conclusion here. I've seen this sort of thing play out before and have been involved in name/trademark disputes in the past. It's rarely as simple as most people believe.

 

[Ridire]

While I see this perspective as valid, the challenge is that, even though we have developed this train of thought here, I cant see any where else that this is supported. Maybe this is the legal threat that Bells is concerned about, and I understand that they dont want this played out publicly, but its a lil bit late for that. Its already being played out publicly and its giving them, and not Innovation, a black eye.

And this being a valid legal threat to be concerned about, a co-existence agreement sounds like the perfect remedy. Which is why I continue to say that Bell's version of events sounds much more plausible than anything I've read in the media.

 

[bob1852]

Learn a bit about trademark law. It's very reasonable.

And Bell's isn't particularly being sh**ty here. If they sent the small brewery a cease and desist to protect their rights, and the small brewery ignored it, then Bell's only choice is to sue. I would bet the lawsuit has nothing to do with $$$, and has more to do with the small brewery telling Bells to f-off after they asked them to stop violating their trademarks. Good businesses don't go around suing unless they have to, and Bell's is a good business, so I would bet they had to.

I have a law degree and my undergrad degree is in public relations. Here's what I see here, reading between the lines:

Bells' sought to protect itself from future trademark infringement claims by Innovation, as described above by me and by Ridire. Uninformed reporters at the Detroit Free Press and some online bloggers don't understand the Lanham Act, miss the subtleties of what's going on here, and run "Goliath picks on little David!" stories, people on HBT, BA, etc. lose their collective minds and call Bell's a bully and now we have a full-blown media s**storm, which Bell's is trying to remedy. Hopefully a big paper like the New York Times or Wall Street Journal will address this and give us the whole story.

Quit with your knowledge and logic; we're trying to storm the castle here!

 

[bob1852]

I don't particularly care for Bell's beers since by the time they get to Arizona they're a bit past their peak, but I'm going to buy a sixer of Two Hearted and Amber tonight.

 

[DrankGoodness]

If Bell's facebook post is true, then they should be calling for retractions from more than one reputable newspaper. People's outrage over this comes from news stories. If what they posted on facebook is all there is to this, then Bells could end the outrage by having the story corrected (ie. cooperate with the reporter).

I suspect Bells has not taken this route because they don't believe the truth is in their best interest.

 

[scarekrow]

That's it. I'm not drinking either one of their brews until they start distributing here. At which time I'll probably change my mind and support them.

 

[Ridire]

And just for ****s and giggles, I took a minute on my lunch to search the Federal Court system for any sort of lawsuit. Innovation appears to never have been named in any Federal Court as a party. Bell's Brewing has one case listed, from back in 2011, against what appears to be a distributor/retailer.

Again, the "Bell's has sued a fledgling brewery" story seems a little flaky, and Bell's version is consistent with provable facts.

 

[TrustyOlJohnson]

http://www.beeradvocate.com/communi...-trademark-dispute-with-bells-brewery.266531/

Copper Bell lawsuit

Im really not trying to stoke a fire here. I dont need to. Bell's has brought this level of public condemnation on themselves. And its a BIG DEAL! Bells events are being canceled in areas because of this, petitions are being signed online, and forums (like this one) are drawing a great deal of negative publicity to Bell's. Not Innovation.

So, for those that have legal experience or background, a question:

What legal liability is Bells exposed to if Bells throws out the bumper stickers, doesn't distribute them anymore and Innovation is successful in using this as their name. Innovation can sue for Bell's past use of the word on the bumper sticker? Is that a real legal risk?