Russia Using Internet Censorship Laws To Block Websites Of Opposition Candidate, Independent Media

Schlafly Beer Trademark App Brings Out All The Egomaniacal Schlaflys In Existence

from the go-schlaf$#@-yourselves dept

Thu, Mar 13th 2014 10:03pm — Timothy Geigner

I don't get it, but the never ending list of trademark disputes centered around alcohol just continues to grow. Previously we've seen universities going after small brewers over common sports terms, disputes over completely dissimilar lables, and depictions of zombie trademark lawyers doing what zombie trademark lawyers do: kill the living. But this one is a whole new level of egotistical crazy.

For a couple of decades, the St. Louis Brewery Co., co-founded by Tom Schlafly, has been selling Schlafly beer. Phyllis Schlafly, Tom's Aunt, is a special kind of "conservative commentator" and has spent a couple of decades proudly setting back the women's rights movement, railing against marriage equality, and insisting that this whole "being Latino" thing in America is just a fad and Republicans need pay no mind. Now the family is entering into a trademark battle in which Phyllis doesn't think Tom should be able to trademark his beer because, essentially, she's totally a big deal. Seriously, that's what her claim amounts to.

The Schlafly beer maker applied for the trademark on the use of the brand name in 2011; Phyllis Schlafly filed a notice of opposition with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in September 2012. Settlement talks have failed to produce a resolution, and neither side appears ready to back down...Phyllis Schlafly, who declined to be interviewed for this story, argues that the word Schlafly has no usage or meaning other than as a last name, and she lays claim to it.

“In connection with its usage as a surname, it has the connotation of conservative values, which to millions of Americans (such as Baptists and Mormons) means abstinence from alcohol,” her filing with the trademark office states. “An average consumer in Saint Louis and elsewhere would think ‘Schlafly’ is a surname associated with me, and thus the registration of this name as a trademark by Applicant should be denied.”

Got that? Phyllis Schlafly is well known, therefore everyone's going to look at a beer with her last name on it and immediately think of this smiling face.

See the absence of eyeballs? It's because she doesn't have a soul. Now if it seems pretty ridiculous that a brewery that's been selling a beer under the name of one of its founders for over two decades suddenly has to face a trademark opposition on their brand from an elderly woman going all Mormon and Baptist on its ass, well, you're not wrong, but that isn't even the best part. No, the best part is this.

“The full federal trademark has nothing to do with our right to sell beer, and no one is contesting our right to do that,” Tom Schlafly said. “We sell the equivalent of 20 million bottles of beer a year, and we want to keep someone else from selling beer and calling it Schlafly."

Get it yet? Phyllis Schlafly is contesting the trademark application because she doesn't like her name being associated with a beer brand. However, denying the mark wouldn't keep Tom Schlafly from using the name on his beer labels, he just wouldn't be able to register a trademark for it. In other words, the entire ultimate goal driving this opposition won't be attained by the opposition. Way to go, Phyllis! Other Schlaflys have been coming out of the woodwork since, including Andy Schlafly, Phyllis' son, and Bruce Schlafly, an orthopedic surgeon and also Phyllis' son, have since come out in opposition to the mark.

Fortunately, the brewery is likely to win.

Yvette Liebesman, an assistant professor of law at St. Louis University who teaches intellectual property law, said Schlafly beer has a strong case because the company has used the name in commerce for so long.

“The very first time they started selling beer from the tap, that is when they got rights to the mark,” she said. “They certainly have been around long enough to acquire a secondary meaning.” To get the trademark, Schlafly beer must show its goods are not likely to be confused with goods sold by others, Liebesman said. Phyllis Schlafly “would have to prove that there’s a likelihood that people would confuse the two, and I think that’s going to be tough,” Liebesman said.

But, like, Phyllis Schlafly is going to be so upset! Oh well, I'll just drown my sorrows in some brew. One Schlafly, please!

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: beer, name rights, phyllis schlafly, schlafly, tom schlafly, trademark
Companies: st. louis brewery co.

30 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Arioch (profile), 13 Mar 2014 @ 11:43pm

Wonderful Brewery?
At the risk of sounding patronising, I am someone who appreciates a quality ale. I have sampled many and heard of many more that I should taste, but Schlafly is one of my more unfortunate experiences.
Quite frankly chemically brewed p*ss, is not my beverage of choice.
So Phyllis, don't sue so much for the trademark.
Sue them for calling their abomination "beer" and attempting to associate you with that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2014 @ 4:53am
  
  Re: Wonderful Brewery?
  Schlafly's coffee stout is the best I've had in the past few years. Maybe your tastebuds are retarded.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2015 @ 7:16am
  
  Re: Wonderful Brewery?
  Everyone has their own tastes and you are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but I feel the need to post my own experience.
  Schlafly brews a hefeweizen on par with what I've enjoyed in Germany. I agree with the other comment that the coffee stout is also excellent. The brewery (and restaurant) is a great place to visit and I recommend it to anyone visiting STL.
  I wish I could get their beers at home, but sadly their distribution doesn't quite make it to my area.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
zem, 13 Mar 2014 @ 11:45pm

image if they had tried to register "schlaflys bitter"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2014 @ 8:47am
  
  Re:
  would explain that face...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 14 Mar 2014 @ 1:19am

She preaches that women should defer to men, yet she is expressing an opinion without a man telling her what it should be...
I think she has forgotten her place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BBQ Steve, 14 Mar 2014 @ 1:23am

Phyllis
Man, that ole broad sure is a cold one. Makes me want to pop her top.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btrussell (profile), 16 Mar 2014 @ 3:39am
  
  Re: Phyllis
  When did "cherry" become "top?"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lawrence D�Oliveiro, 14 Mar 2014 @ 2:07am

I Thought You Can�t Trademark Your Own Name?
Because others with the same name also have the right to use it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Niall (profile), 14 Mar 2014 @ 2:15am
  
  Re:
  Tell that to McDonalds. Guess how popular they were trying to sue companies in Scotland, especially when they weren't even food-related!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2014 @ 2:51am
    
    Re: Re:
    Wait, Scotland allowed McDonald's to sue Scottish businesses when McDonald is pretty much every one's last name there?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ninja (profile), 14 Mar 2014 @ 4:00am
    
    Re: Re:
    I've heard they are suing collections agencies in the US demanding royalties for that song.. You know, Old McDonnald had a farm....
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Lawrence D�Oliveiro, 14 Mar 2014 @ 8:05pm
    
    Re: Tell that to McDonalds
    Seems like the trademark claim dates from when it was no longer owned by anyone named McDonald.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 14 Mar 2014 @ 6:53am
  
  Re:
  I thought the rule was that you could use a trademarked name if that was actually your name. So you could legally open a "McDonald's" if your name really is "McDonald".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ryuugami, 15 Mar 2014 @ 4:36pm
    
    Re: Re:
    So you could legally open a "McDonald's" if your name really is "McDonald".
    
    Wait, wait, wait. So if I legally changed my name to "Joe Coca Cola"...
    
    The possibilities are endless!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Niall (profile), 14 Mar 2014 @ 2:13am

Upsetting, oh dear
Anything that upsets Phyllis and Andy Schaflay is a good thing to me! Anyway, she's so anti-feminist, she should approve of a good beer for her man while she limps barefoot back into her kitchen to make him another sandwich...

And as for Andy "I'm so kooky I'll not only invent Conservapedia but 're-translate' the Bible" Schaflay... well, reality was never his strong suit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Niall (profile), 14 Mar 2014 @ 2:14am
  
  Re: Upsetting, oh dear
  Ugh, pardon my poor spelling of their name, not enough coffee yet.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2014 @ 4:19am

So she's worried that a Mormon in a hurry would confuse beer for backward social views?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trails onna phone, 14 Mar 2014 @ 6:04am

To paraphrase Popehat
The law fails to take into account Opposer's butthurt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2014 @ 6:54am

No more Schlaflys anywhere
Phyllis' claim threatens to suck the Schlafly name (what a mellifluous collection of consonants!) out of ancestries everywhere. Rats... there goes my complete set of Chicago Cubs 1902 baseball cards, once she snatches away the Larry Schlafly card.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2014 @ 8:06am

I actually don't see the big deal here. Follow me on this one: Schlafly trademarks the name. Someone else in the family starts a business. This trademark would then give the brewery a possible claim to prevent that product from calling it Schlafly, if they think that the name would be confused with their brand. (It doesn't matter if they're in the right, once it hits the legal side, it's about who has the bigger pockets. Right?) I can see why she'd object.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 14 Mar 2014 @ 8:26am
  
  Re:
  That would only apply if the Schlafly estate started selling beer.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2014 @ 8:54am
  
  Re:
  aren't trademarks specific to product categories anyway? so if the brewery only has the trademark on Beer (or whatever category beer falls under) they couldn't stop anyone opening a business using, or even trademarking the same name, unless it sells beer (or equivalent category).
  
  But I think this is about an ultra conservative (and seemingly a very hypocritical one at that) who wishes prohibition back and doesn't like her name attached to alcoholic beverages.
  
  So, basically fuck her. (not literally, that would just be eww... mindbleach please...)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2014 @ 4:02pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I haven't seen the trademark application. How do we know he's just applying for 'beer'? He might be applying for all kinds of alcoholic/non-alcoholic beverages and everything from keychains over baseball caps to t-shirts and pens.
    
    Merchandising, ya know. I've seen lots of trademark applications (on the internet, connected to stories like this, some of them right here on techdirt), that in one fell swoop lay claim to everything (un-)imaginable, even though the company in question originally wanted to sell one specific item/category of items.
    
    You never know what the future holds, so you apply to have the trademark on anything you can remotely see yourself selling with your trademark du jour on it - whether or not you get around to selling everything you planned to is a different question.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
mattshow (profile), 14 Mar 2014 @ 9:49am

Forget the courts. This can be solved by Google. Phylis thinks the name "Schlafy" is more closely associated with her? The first item that comes back on a Google search for "Shlafy" is Schlafy Beer. Phylis is second.

Game. Set. Match.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2014 @ 4:04pm
  
  Re:
  Try again googling for 'Schlafly'. Lemme know how it works out, I'm too busy right now to do it myself...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
michaelw, 14 Mar 2014 @ 10:57am

Schlafly Beer
He should agree to stop using the name in return for calling the beer Aunty Phyllis's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
M. Alan Thomas II (profile), 14 Mar 2014 @ 2:14pm

I should like to point out, in case anyone was wondering, that the beer people are liberals and are quite embarassed to be related to her.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2014 @ 4:09pm
  
  Re:
  So? What bearing has it on the trademark application/dispute?
  
  Just as little (read 'nothing at all') as: 'Phyllis Schlafly is a conservative and is quite embarrassed to be related to the beer people.'
  
  Neither side's claims are bolstered by statements like these.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lawrence D�Oliveiro, 14 Mar 2014 @ 8:09pm

By The Way...
...as an anti-feminist, Mrs Schlafly should know that �Schlafly� is not her own name but her husband�s name. Her formal name, acknowledging her status as officially the property of her husband, is �Mrs John Fred Schlafly, Jr�. Otherwise, she could be known informally as just �Phyllis�, with no last name of her own. Those are her choices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]