51–60 of 112 posts
1. Did the JD lawyer expect the letter to be publicly displayed when he wrote it? I think it's unreasonable to expect this.
2. Even if it is some sort of PR stunt, why is this a bad thing? Is it even possible to have a mutualistic relationship between consumers and companies any more?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Well they are obvisouly going to be worth a few $$$ just because they sell so much of it. But the cynical engineer in me assumed that all the "Billy-Bob still pisses in every barrel just like his grand-pappy did in 1869" type advertising, meant that it was actually made in a chemical plant in New Jersey by Union Carbide! Must admit I've never tried the stuff - always worked on the principle that if it's not a single…
Jack Daniels is distilled in Lynchburgh, TN. You can visit them.
I doubt Jack Daniels is going to blow you away. I don't even mix with it. But it's thoroughly drinkable, in the same way that a Coke on ice on a hot day is drinkable even though its origins are dubious (way more so than Jack Daniels).
Also: just because something is easy to find doesn't mean its integrity is compromised. You can get Three Floyds Alpha King in most supermarkets in Chicago. Three Floyds is still a very, very serious brewery, and Alpha King is a serious beer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
http://recenteats.blogspot.com/p/complete-list-of-american-w...
If you read whiskey nerd blogs, you'll sometimes even pick up a backlash against bespoke indie distilleries; whiskey being much easier to do than to do well.
topics_i_am_insufferable_about.push(this_one)It baffles me why more companies can't be like this. Surely some testing could provide data on success ratio of sending "friendly" c&d letters versus the normal threatening kind. I suspect people are much more likely to play nice in this kind of scenario (especially when the reason for the c&d is not as strong), but why not at least put it to the test?
It probably has to do with the nature of the infringement. I doubt they'd be so friendly with a distiller that was selling "Jack Dawson" whisky with a visually similar label. The book cover isn't harmless, but it's not malicious, either.
I think I'll go put my money where my mouth is in support of Jack Daniels and pour some over ice.
Good idea; I'm going to buy one with next money I can spare.
They 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.
To be a parody you have to be paroding the thing you are copying, not using it to parody a third party. The defense is intended to stop ACME company preventing you saying "Boycott ACME" by claiming ownership of the name. It doesn't allow you to copy ACME's fine range of anti-roadrunner products to protest against something else. For example Weird Al's songs are parodies but they aren't protected because he is parodyi…
There's a surprising number of cynical replies to this letter. I have two considerations in response: 1. Did the JD lawyer expect the letter to be publicly displayed when he wrote it? I think it's unreasonable to expect this. 2. Even if it is some sort of PR stunt, why is this a bad thing? Is it even possible to have a mutualistic relationship between consumers and companies any more?
Also, as pointed out cross-thread, when your argument is uncertain, it pays to be nice.
I wonder if they wrote such a friendly cease-and-desist letter to Rockbaren in Gothenburg, Sweden. According to the new owner of the night club, this had already been played out between the old owner and JD. Seems not! http://www.goteborgdaily.se/news/jack-daniel-s-to-sue-gothen... http://www.rockbaren.com
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good idea; I'm going to buy one with next money I can spare.
Whoah whoah taking this maybe a little bit too far; before we make Jack Daniels the Louis CK of bourbon (presumptive nerd favorite in exchange for one congenial gesture), maybe you should try some Evan Williams Black Label. It costs 2-3 cups of coffee, and is way better.
I do try to follow the principle of "voting with one's money" though, so I think it is only fair for me to show the appreciation for this JD move by buying a bottle.
First off, it doesn't demand a removal of the book for sale, but merely requests that the next printing have a different cover. That's a huge step forward, and since the need here is to protect the trademark ability of the brand, outrageous demands really aren't' called for. Offering to pay for the cost of changing it if they are willing to do it earlier, is also a generous remedy that protects the brand. The violator doesn't lose money, and the act of paying for the remedy is an act of protection.
I wonder if there isn't a third remedy in cases like this, where it isn't flagrant violations: That being licensing the brand.
Certainly trademarks are licensed all the time- coca-cola licensed clothing is a good example. So, someone using your trademark under license doesn't undermine the ability to protect the mark.
Thus they could have offered to license the mark (as a third possibility) for a reasonable fee. The fee would have to be industry standard (e.g.: "You can use it for $1" would undermine their ability to protect the brand) but I imagine for mildly infringing or only partially infringing situations like this the remedy is probably not too high.
Not that the publisher of this book would likely want to take them up on it, but maybe given the books content in some cases that might be preferable-- where the infringement on the brand has positive economic value for the book, and everyone makes out ok.
The trademark is protected, and the publisher makes a bit more money by being able to use this design than they would if they had to do something completely different.
Further, this activity- of issuing licenses- shows diligence of protecting the mark which enhances its trademark ability. You might not know all the violators of your trademark, but it is the failure to defend the mark that can cause you to lose it. A license is obviously not a failure to defend the mark, and so it helps bolster the mark. (This is what it would seem to me, but I'm not a lawyer.)
Yet I've never seen someone offer to license the trademark to a violator.