Judge Rules: Drunk Moron In A Hurry Wouldn't Know Tequila From Maker's Mark
from the wax-on,-wax-off dept
After seven years in the courts, a federal judge has ruled that a dripping red wax seal can only be used by Maker's Mark bourbon. While no monetary damages were awarded, the judge issued an injunction to prevent Diageo and Casa Cuervo from using a dripping wax seal on their tequilas, specifically, their high-end tequila, Cuervo Reserva. Maker's Mark has held the trademark (pdf) on the dripping wax since the 50s; Cuervo Reservo launched with their dripping wax design in 2001, after using a non-dripping wax seal in previous years. Call me a moron in a hurry, but these tequila bottles really don't remind me of Maker's Mark one bit.That said, the injunction won't really affect Cuervo that much right now, since they stopped the dripping wax design after 2007 in favor of a cleaner wax seal, but that might not even matter -- Maker's Mark filed a second suit in 2009, alleging that even a non-dripping bottle still infringes upon their trademark. That suit seems even more ridiculous, since wax seals are commonly used to seal not just liquors, but also anything from wine to vinegar to honey.
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bourbon, jose cuervo, maker's mark, tequila, trademark
Companies: diageo
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I know I'm still trying to get my patent for the wheel processed. Sharp sticks are coming next.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Drunken rage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Drunken rage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Drunken rage.
Back to the discussion topic... A wax seal seems a bit of a generic packaging gimmick. What's next, a judge ruling the gift wrapping counter at Sacks department store is the only one allowed to use blue ribbons?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Drunken rage.
I think I've found the problem. Maker's Mark isn't overpriced, you're underfunded!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Monster effect...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
maker's mark ambassador
And having also been part of a market research group for a rum company trying to emulate the success of high end vodka through package design, I can assure you that the bottle is as important to liquor as it is to perfume.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: maker's mark ambassador
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: maker's mark ambassador
The liquor is what is important. The fact that you can fleece the rubes by putting substandard crap in a fancy bottle with a pretentious name isn't something you should brag about.
You're crass and your customers are stupid and have no taste.
A Scarlet Pimpernel wax seal is pretty irrelevant. The judge must be a total teetotaler.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: maker's mark ambassador
Maker's Mark has been using the dripping wax seal as part of their brand identity for over half a century. If I walked down the aisle of a liquor store, and saw another bottle whose top was similarly dipped, I'd assume there was some sort of connection with Maker's Mark, as would many people. The plain (undripping) wax seal is another matter, but it's certainly within Maker's Marks rights to let a court decide that as well (you're required to protect your trademarks, remember?). Not saying they should win that one, but that's why we have legal review.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: maker's mark ambassador
As for your idea of standard and substandard, I would wager to say that Jack Daniel's is closer to the standard. Maker's Mark? Doesn't hold a candle to Glenlivet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait you mean there is alcohol
is anyone else getting ired of this crap?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Cause I'm interested in submitting a claim on that little bugger.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"A Method of improving the enjoyment of a liquidized luxury by transferring an alcoholic beverage into a silicon dioxide container."
Given the patent on the wheel, this might actually work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"A method of alleviating toxic overload by releasing methane into the atmosphere."
What do you suppose that patent is for?
See, the trick here is to confuse the unsuspecting patent examiner into thinking that what you're proposing is somehow new and innovative by using fancy words.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When I am looking to purchase a bottle, I have never considered the presence (or absence) of wax.
I look at reviews, some online, of tequila and decide that I would like to try a particular brand ... that being said, I would never think the presence (or absence) of wax would make any differnce at all.
Maybe others think wax is a big deal ... I can not envision why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
People are idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not even in the same aisle
This reminds me of some Green Acres episode where some relative of Haney is the judge or the building inspector...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not even in the same aisle
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When I am looking to purchase a bottle, I have never considered the presence (or absence) of wax.
I look at reviews, some online, of tequila and decide that I would like to try a particular brand ... that being said, I would never think the presence (or absence) of wax would make any differnce at all.
Maybe others think wax is a big deal ... I can not envision why.
You don't get it. A dripping red wax seal is not an indication of quality; it is an indication that it is made by the distillers of Maker's Mark. If something is used on a bottle to indicate the quality of the liquor inside, that something would be functional, not a trademark. But when something that is used on a bottle is only done so in order to call attention to the source of the goods, then it is a trademark.
Now, if you associate Maker's Mark with high quality liquor, then perhaps I could see why you would associate a dripping red wax seal with the same. But that is a function of the goodwill developed and imparted by the distillers of Maker's Mark, not a function of what a wax seal represents in general.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes, I do "get it". Possibly you did not understand.
What I do not "get" is brand loyalty, something which several posters here including yourself seem to be engaged in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, I do "get it". Possibly you did not understand.
What I do not "get" is brand loyalty, something which several posters here including yourself seem to be engaged in.
Well, then you are in the minority. Brand recognition is the reason companies use names and marks on the face of their products: it lets the consumer know who the source of the product is. And if the consumer associates a certain level of quality with such a name or mark, then the consumer will act accordingly when presented with the option of buying the product. That's the power of brand loyalty. Surely you must understand that.
Perhaps brand loyalty is of no concern to you. That's fine. But to say that you don't "get" brand loyalty is either evident of your ignorance or indicative of your arrogance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ruling in favor of the plaintiff. Case closed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trademark Issues
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trademark Issues
The fact that other products have used wax seals is irrelevant, since this is a trademark, not patent, litigation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Trademark Issues
The fact that other products have used wax seals is irrelevant, since this is a trademark, not patent, litigation.
Well said. Good luck getting Mike to acknowledge that he's wrong, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Trademark Issues
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Trademark Issues
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Trademark Issues
If people can't read anything more than a wax gob...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Trademark Issues
You look confused, possibly you could ask Dennis Yang about that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Trademark Issues
That sounds like fraud.
"It's about brand recognition"
uhm... brand recognition. That means the ability to recognize a brand, IOW, the ability to recognize whether or not something belongs to coke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
who cares
~$20 range, buy elijah craig 12 year. nothing beats it for that price.
~$40 kentucky spirit or elijah craig 18 year
~$60 william larue weller - barrel proof, unfiltered (one of the best bourbons you'll ever drink, period)
~$120+ pappy van winkle - 20 or 23 year old ...
enjoy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wrong Moron
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]