The MPAA Forces Craft Brewer To Abandon Its 'Rated R' Beer Brand

from the this-beer-is-not-yet-rated dept

Thu, Jan 29th 2015 9:07pm — Timothy Geigner

The MPAA. Usually that's all I'd have to say and then we could all have good combo laugh/cry over exactly how cartoonishly dickish an organization could be. But now it's entered the realm of alcohol, where trademark silliness is all too prevalent. But if any of those previous stories looked petty, the pure petty stones on these MPAA folks will astound you. Yes, it has come to this: a craft brewery has been forced to change the name of its celebrated "Rated R" beer brand. This, people, is as stupid as it gets.

A few weeks ago the MPAA sent a cease and desist letter to Minneapolis beer brewery 612 Brew, who’re known for their tasty beers including the popular “Rated R” brand. The movie industry group pointed out that the company was using the “Rated R” trademark without permission and urged the beer maker to drop the name to avoid confusion.

Of course! Who could possibly deny how the confusion over whether I was drinking an R-rated movie or a beer might creep into my brain? Who also could possibly deny that the MPAA's "Rated R" trademark is something other than purely descriptive? I mean, it's not like the mark is, you know, describing the exact state of rating of the movie or anything, right? And, finally, really how different are the movie and beer-making industries? Aren't they essentially the same thing? Because if they aren't, then this really doesn't make any sense.

The brewery first responded to the demands by arguing that the Rated R name can be used as they clearly operate in a different industry. The MPAA wasn’t convinced though.

Imagine the look on the faces of the sweet folks making this wonderful alcohol when they were informed that the lawyers at the MPAA weren't convinced that the MPAA and a brewery were in different industries. I imagine it took the grace of god himself to keep embolisms from popping inside of their brains as they tried to process a claim so stupid.

And, yet, because the brewery is small and the MPAA is big, the name of the beer will be changed. This is how stupidity plus money can equal the good guy getting screwed out of his brand. The beer will continue on, of course, though under a different name: "unrated."

The brewery now has to hope that the “unrated” name won’t cause any headaches in the future. A quick search reveals that there’s an “unrated” trademark application in progress by a “yoga pants” outfit, so fingers crossed.

Fingers crossed. Jesus...

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, movies, r-rated, trademark, unrated
Companies: mpaa

50 Comments

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

Reader Comments

The First Word

“

Pirate Beer

I think they should rename it as "Pirate Beer - The Only Arrr-Rated Brew"

—Spaceman Spiff

”

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

antidirt (profile), 29 Jan 2015 @ 8:37pm

Wow. No mention that this is a certification mark, not a trademark. No discussion of what the actual infringement test is, much less how to apply it here. No understanding of what a "purely descriptive" mark is. Must be more IP "analysis" by Timmy G on TD. "This, people, is as stupid as it gets." Couldn't have said it better myself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 9:20pm
  
  Re:
  geez trolling has gone downhill. your predecessors from years past were much better.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Blackfiredragon13 (profile), 29 Jan 2015 @ 9:41pm
  
  Re:
  You must be some kind of bot to leap onto a story as fast you do and post some annoying blurb of text as
  I look through the comments.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 9:53pm
  
  Response to: antidirt on Jan 29th, 2015 @ 8:37pm
  If a beer can infringe a movie related certification then the IP system is broken
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - David, 30 Jan 2015 @ 2:31am
    
    Re: Response to: antidirt on Jan 29th, 2015 @ 8:37pm
    Well, if a projectionist accidentally pours his beer all over a film roll, then shouts to his colleagues "help me save the R-rated!" they will not know what to do and precious seconds might be lost.
    
    The damage can be even more pronounced with digital projectors.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 29 Jan 2015 @ 10:00pm
  
  Re:
  Yeah, how exactly would a certification mark be applicable here as an argument for why the MPAA's claim isn't ridiculous?
  
  When it's used for movies, it's indicating that a movie is rated at a particular level, which would seem to be what a certification mark is used for('Movie X meets the criteria to be rated R'). When a brewery uses it, they're not certifying that the beer is anything, it's just a term used as a brand for a particular line of beers.
  
  I think it's pretty safe to assume that they are not trying to make people think that the movie ratings board has certified that their beer meets the criteria to be 'Rated R', and someone would have to either be a lawyer, or incredibly drunk for such a 'potential confusion' to even occur.
  
  The 'infringement test' part is rather moot, given the difference between the two categories(though a lousy beer, much like a lousy movie, can have you feeling even worse after 'consumption' than before, and wishing you'd spent your money elsewhere).
  
  If viewed as a certification mark, then given the vastly different categories, it really wouldn't apply, given how insane it would be to test and 'certify' a beer brand the same as a movie. If viewed in the trademark angle, then given the purpose of those is to 'prevent customer confusion', again, you'd have to be a lawyer or very drunk to think that a brand of beer has anything to do with movie ratings, so the potential confusion there is minimal at best.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - antidirt (profile), 30 Jan 2015 @ 9:29am
    
    Re: Re:
    I think you missed my point. I'm sure Timmy G is well-suited to produce "look how dumb!" posts for TD. It's just that, ironically enough, he's the one who looks dumb when he attempts to draw legal conclusions. It's painfully obvious that he has very little grasp of trademark law. Considering how Mike has built a career in blasting other sites for writing dumb stuff, it's deliciously funny that his own writers display such shameful shortcomings. Timmy G strikes me as the guy who berates another with a "your dumb" reply.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 30 Jan 2015 @ 10:17am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Once again, you might do better to actually explain what he got wrong with his analysis here instead of just spewing insults.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2015 @ 10:53am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Aren't you the guy who does nothing but berate others with "your dumb" replies?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dark Helmet (profile), 30 Jan 2015 @ 11:37am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      your dumb
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - antidirt (profile), 3 Feb 2015 @ 9:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        your dumb
        
        Good for you for taking such criticism in stride. With a bit of homework, one day you'll be able to accurately discuss the merits of the cases you routinely mock. I look forward to it!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2015 @ 10:03pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Keep whining, chicken boy.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DocGerbil100 (profile), 29 Jan 2015 @ 11:02pm
  
  Re:
  It's a trademark dispute, not a certification dispute.
  
  The article fails to give much information, but this comes from TorrentFreak who in turn got it from apparent originators BizJournals, both of whom go into more detail.
  
  http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/news/2015/01/27/612brew-ratedr-ipa-unrated-name-change- mpaa-fight.html
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 11:29pm
  
  Re:
  Finally decided to log back in after shitting in the comments with your chicken noises, fuckface?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 30 Jan 2015 @ 2:29am
  
  Re:
  Agreed, they should change the name to MAFIAA R.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2015 @ 6:12am
  
  Re:
  Because none of that is relevant unless you live and breathe a permission society. After all, where the hell does anybody get off naming their product anything without getting the proper permission first? Arrogant Bastards(tm).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 9:17pm

sigh
i swear the MPAA is the isis of content...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 9:22pm
  
  Re: sigh
  Mr Burns
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 11:19pm
  
  Re: sigh
  Shareef don't like it
  Rock the seebox, rock the seedbox
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- AudibleNod (profile), 30 Jan 2015 @ 5:59am
  
  Re: sigh
  You'd better hope ISIS doesn't find out you used their mark without their consent.
  :P
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Pragmatic, 2 Feb 2015 @ 7:39am
  
  Re: sigh
  Shame you didn't leave your name, AC. We could've called this variant of Godwin's Law after you.
  
  That said, they really are that bad.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ed, 29 Jan 2015 @ 9:33pm

Uhh, is this beer or a movie, I'm just a stupid consumer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 30 Jan 2015 @ 2:30am
  
  Re:
  When beer meets the movies: The Hangover.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
FarSide (profile), 29 Jan 2015 @ 10:12pm

Next up: MADD is upset about how the name implies it's a beer for those 17 and up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonmalous, 29 Jan 2015 @ 10:15pm

Hmmm... high incidence of gratuitous violence, sex, nudity, and adult language.

I'd say all beer should definitely be rated R by the MPAA standards for the mark. Now I see why they say its confusing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pixelation, 29 Jan 2015 @ 10:20pm

Ironic
When I Google MPAA, I get Motorparts of America, Inc. Who should be suing whom?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 10:24pm

The MPAA is just upset that the beer forbids them from drinking it, because their mental age is definitely below 17.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sinsi (profile), 29 Jan 2015 @ 10:33pm

Rated R. For a movie it means 18+. for a beer it means 18+ (at least here in Australia). So, a purely descriptive term.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kal Zekdor (profile), 29 Jan 2015 @ 10:57pm

Really?
Really MPAA? Really...? I mean, they've done some stupid shit... but... really? Just... facepalm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
eaving (profile), 30 Jan 2015 @ 1:10am

Have they considered rebranding to '@$!#@* MPAA Lawyers'?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
saulgoode (profile), 30 Jan 2015 @ 2:08am

But...
The MPAA and breweries are in the same business, that of killing brain cells of their customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 30 Jan 2015 @ 2:32am
  
  Re: But...
  It seems the MPAA is doing a better job then...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Just Another Anonymous Troll, 30 Jan 2015 @ 11:20am
  
  Re: But...
  Exactly! There is a second similarity in the sense that eventually beer becomes piss, and the MPAA exclusively creates s**t.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
JR Price (profile), 30 Jan 2015 @ 2:51am

I'm surprised that the WWE and Adam Copeland ("Edge") weren't hit with the same kind of stupidity when he used the "Rated R Superstar" moniker...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
martixy (profile), 30 Jan 2015 @ 4:39am

How is this not a clear-cut case legally?
Is this not exactly what the "different industries" clause covers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PRMan, 30 Jan 2015 @ 5:13am
  
  Re:
  Yeah, they should have at least filed for a summary judgment first. I would assume they would have gotten it from the court.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2015 @ 5:05am

They should change it to "M for Mature" or "AO - Adults Only"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spaceman Spiff (profile), 30 Jan 2015 @ 5:06am

Pirate Beer
I think they should rename it as "Pirate Beer - The Only Arrr-Rated Brew"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rich, 30 Jan 2015 @ 5:29am
  
  Re: Pirate Beer
  Best response ever.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 30 Jan 2015 @ 8:25am
  
  Re: Pirate Beer
  +10000 internets to you dear sir. I hope you make to the funniest of the week. Epic comment.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ryan (profile), 30 Jan 2015 @ 8:30am
  
  Re: Pirate Beer
  Mr Pirate's Alcoholic Ale
  The Only Arrr-Rated Brew
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
aethercowboy (profile), 30 Jan 2015 @ 5:59am

I for one am glad to not have to face a future of purchasing a beer that has a high level of violence, language, or sexuality not suitable for unaccompanied children under 17.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2015 @ 8:00am

Permission society be hanged. It's the Threat Of Litigation Society that's at work here. Who has the deeper pockets? It does you no good to Defend the Rightous straight into bankruptcy. Techdirt has documented that happening in other cases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 30 Jan 2015 @ 8:41am
  
  Re:
  "Permission society be hanged. It's the Threat Of Litigation Society that's at work here."
  
  I think that those two phrases are just different descriptions of the same thing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2015 @ 8:10am

Simple solution...
...rename it "Rated X". The MPAA abandoned that long ago.

Bonus: might see sales go up!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- angelbar (profile), 30 Jan 2015 @ 8:18am
  
  Re: Simple solution...
  erect sales... 8-)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2015 @ 2:35pm

Confusion
"Is this just a really bad movie or am I drunk? I'm so confused!"

See how that confusion occurs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2015 @ 2:39pm

What will they do when it goes into the dictionary, sue? Remember Styrofoam, that became a word, not just a brand name. BIG MONEY got no soul.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2015 @ 5:29pm

Is the same if the beer where named 'R Rated' instead of 'Rated R'?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Jan 2015 @ 10:04am

MAFIAA at its best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]