21–30 of 112 posts
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.
Because their lawyers aren't this smart. Assuming it ever came to court, it comes down to who the jury likes. Compare this letter being read out as evidence to a standard Disney-style "we will wipe you and your family from the face of the Earth" (for copying a story that we copied from Christian-Anderson) - who are th jury going to feel for?
I would hope to all that is holy that a jury wouldn't give 2 shits what the letter says. It should be about whether or not the person infringed on a trademark, not who has the nicest smile. It's not about lawyer's being smart, it's about most people being vindictive asshats. If someone is willing to infringe on your trademark it's most likely that they're not willing to roll over and take any polite request to stop.…
So if you don't want to become a fax or xerox or kleenex you have to stamp down on anyone using the name generically.
But you also have to protect other aspects of the brand image. If you can't show that you have rigorously policed somebody using the JD bottle image, then when another drinks maker comes along and calls their product "John Smith's whiskey" but puts it in a bottle like this then they can claim that JD obviously didn't attach any importance to the shape/design of the bottle because they hadn't pursued other users
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And it's worth how much in free advertising and brand image? Assuming that JD is actually owned by some mega-corp fizzy beer maker (they are not "brewers"!) it's a clever way of giving the impression that they are still good ol' boys. Compare that to the Disney corps hunting down of every sick children's hospital that paints cartoon characters on it's walls.
Jack-Daniels is owned by Brown-Forman which specializes in spirits and not beer. The least alcoholic lines they run are wine.
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.
There's a big difference between the two. In the book case, they have a fan in an entirely different business who infringed. They're sane enough to realize that this is very unlikely to impact their bottom line, and there's no malicious intent.
In the "Jack Dawson" case, it's naked profiteering off the original brand's name recognition, and it's clearly malicious. Why be nice?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would hope to all that is holy that a jury wouldn't give 2 shits what the letter says. It should be about whether or not the person infringed on a trademark, not who has the nicest smile. It's not about lawyer's being smart, it's about most people being vindictive asshats. If someone is willing to infringe on your trademark it's most likely that they're not willing to roll over and take any polite request to stop.…
Trademark law is a bit bad in this respect. You have to (or be seen to) defend your brand or lose it So if you don't want to become a fax or xerox or kleenex you have to stamp down on anyone using the name generically. But you also have to protect other aspects of the brand image. If you can't show that you have rigorously policed somebody using the JD bottle image, then when another drinks maker comes along and call…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jack-Daniels is owned by Brown-Forman which specializes in spirits and not beer. The least alcoholic lines they run are wine.
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 !
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would hope to all that is holy that a jury wouldn't give 2 shits what the letter says. It should be about whether or not the person infringed on a trademark, not who has the nicest smile. It's not about lawyer's being smart, it's about most people being vindictive asshats. If someone is willing to infringe on your trademark it's most likely that they're not willing to roll over and take any polite request to stop.…
Trademark law is a bit bad in this respect. You have to (or be seen to) defend your brand or lose it So if you don't want to become a fax or xerox or kleenex you have to stamp down on anyone using the name generically. But you also have to protect other aspects of the brand image. If you can't show that you have rigorously policed somebody using the JD bottle image, then when another drinks maker comes along and call…
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" then Coca-Cola can't raise any legal objection against either Pepsi or me, and it is this sort of thing that might (and to an extent, already has) lead to other brands being called "coke".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trademark law is a bit bad in this respect. You have to (or be seen to) defend your brand or lose it So if you don't want to become a fax or xerox or kleenex you have to stamp down on anyone using the name generically. But you also have to protect other aspects of the brand image. If you can't show that you have rigorously policed somebody using the JD bottle image, then when another drinks maker comes along and call…
I think you meant trademark law. AFAIK, copyright doesn't require an active defense to preserve your rights.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trademark law is a bit bad in this respect. You have to (or be seen to) defend your brand or lose it So if you don't want to become a fax or xerox or kleenex you have to stamp down on anyone using the name generically. But you also have to protect other aspects of the brand image. If you can't show that you have rigorously policed somebody using the JD bottle image, then when another drinks maker comes along and call…
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…
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 anybody else tries to call a tablet a something-PAD.