A great product coupled with decency? It's such a crazy idea... it just might work.
Great product?
The Whiskey Rebellion
31–40 of 112 posts
Re: The Whiskey Rebellion
#32They are being nice because it's protected under "parody" free speech and they'd lose.
I don't drink so I am not very familiar with their label but I definitely don't think of JD when I see it.
Re: The Whiskey Rebellion
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
First, autarch is correct that you're confusing copyright with trademark. Second, fax was never a trademark (or copyrighted), its origination is from Latin, 'fac simile'. Finally, Xerox and Kleenex (and others like Hoover) didn't become generic because they didn't defend their trademarks, the problem was never that rival brands named their products using these names. If I buy a bottle of Pepsi and call it "a coke" th…
It's from facsilimile - but the first commercial product and the first to include the 'fax' was Xerox's MAGNAFAX, although they seem to have used the term LDX rather than FAX for the process. Coca cola famously won a case preventing others calling themselves "Coke" but lost the Cola part when it was shown that they regarded it as a general term for any similar drink. I suspect Apple's lawyers are more careful when an…
It's shortened from facsilimile, which is from the Latin "fac simile" as I said. It was always a description, not a brand name.
Coca-Cola can prevent other companies from calling their products "coke" - but there aren't companies out there calling their products "Xerox" or "Kleenex". Their problem is that consumers refer to other products using their brand names, so the fact that Coca-Cola have preserved their trademark is irrelevant if there are people (and there are) who see a bottle of Pepsi and say "I'm going to grab a coke".
Re: The Whiskey Rebellion
#34Re: The Whiskey Rebellion
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had assumed that were now owned by Anheuser-Busch or Diageo or some other mega-corp just because they are so good at brand image management !
They're smaller than Diageo, but still a pretty big company.. almost $4b annual revenue.
When you look into it, you'll find that almost every American whiskey --- both the stuff you can get at Safeway and the enthusiast bottles --- rolls up somehow to a large corporation.
Re: The Whiskey Rebellion
#36A great product coupled with decency? It's such a crazy idea... it just might work.
Great product?
I'm so knowledgeable about liquors and stuff, I can't stand dilettante whiskey drinking. Beotians! those that think that the black sticker bottle contains but urine and alcohol.
Go be a liquor nerd somewhere else.
Re: The Whiskey Rebellion
#37Re: The Whiskey Rebellion
#38They are being nice because it's protected under "parody" free speech and they'd lose. I don't drink so I am not very familiar with their label but I definitely don't think of JD when I see it.
You mean parody fair use. Tricky, and thus risky, and so probably not worth it. Jack Daniels has a very distinctive brand, and the publisher used it to promote a commercial product.
So, for example, a risqu� parody of an L.L. Bean magazine advertisement was found not to constitute infringement. L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Drake Publishers, Inc., 811 F.2d 26, 28 (1st Cir. 1987). Similarly, the use of a pig-like character named "Spa'am" in a Muppet movie was found not to violate Hormel's rights in the trademark "Spam." Hormel Foods Corp. v. Jim Henson Prods., 73 F.3d 497 (2d Cir. 1996). On the other hand, "Gucchie Goo" diaper bags were found not to be protected under the parody defenseGucci Shops, Inc. v. R.H. Macy & Co., 446 F. Supp. 838 (S.D.N.Y. 1977). Similarly, posters bearing the logo "Enjoy Cocaine" were found to violate the rights of Coca-Cola in the slogan "Enjoy Coca-ColaCoca-Cola Co. v. Gemini Rising, Inc., 346 F. Supp. 1183 (E.D.N.Y. 1972). Thus, although the courts recognize a parody defense, the precise contours of such a defense are difficult to outline with any precision. [em mine]
Your point is well taken though. It's probably not a slam dunk case.
Re: The Whiskey Rebellion
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're smaller than Diageo, but still a pretty big company.. almost $4b annual revenue.
When you look into it, you'll find that almost every American whiskey --- both the stuff you can get at Safeway and the enthusiast bottles --- rolls up somehow to a large corporation.
Yeah, I'm a scotch man myself (get that "e" out of me whisky), largely because of taste but I do also like the fact that so many great scotches come from family-owned distilleries - of course, even "family-owned" can be a big company with lots of money, but it's still nice that most of them aren't huge companies.
Edit: worth pointing out that there are a bunch of independent distilleries in America, which I'm led to believe by bourbon-lovers make some amazing drinks - but I don't know nearly enough about this area to give examples. It's just that the big companies outnumber and massively out-produce the small ones.
Re: The Whiskey Rebellion
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
In April of 2008, the people responsible for the Jack Daniel's trademark contacted me and asked me to stop using the name "ILoveJackDaniels", and URL "ilovejackdaniels.com", for my site, and to change the logo. They asked "Dave" to stop using the trademark and he did. Seems nice to me, unless you have evidence of strong-arm tactics that Dave didn't discuss on that page.
It's definitely not the worst, but I don't think they should have asked him at all, and (more importantly) let him redirect the old site for more than a year.
From what I understand, companies are required to defend their trademarks, lest their inaction be used to indicate tacet approval of use in court.
More importantly though, they own the trademark and have the right to decide what can be explicitly linked to their brand. Even if the site wasn't making money off of it (to be honest, I'm not familiar with the one in question) the fact that it was using the JD name in a way JD didn't like warrants a C&D.
So yes, they could have been nicer, but they were in the right, and I don't think their request was unreasonable.