University Of Kentucky Battles Kentucky Mist Moonshine Maker Over Hats And T-Shirts
from the kentuck-you dept
We've already established that the University of Kentucky is sort of insane when it comes to overly restrictive trademark practices. We've also established that many other educational institutions are equally asshat-ish when it comes to trademark issues, in particular, for some reason, on any matter that in any way has to do with alcohol brands. The beer and liquor industries are dealing with their own trademark issues resulting from the explosion in craft brewing, but this is the story of how the University of Kentucky has managed to convince itself and, apparently, the USPTO that it has sole ownership of the very name of the state in which it is located for use on apparel.
This all started when Kentucky Mist Moonshine opened its doors recently and, along with ostensibly selling moonshine (mmm!), the company also created apparel to sell at the distillery. You know, hats and T-shirts and whatnot, all of which had "Kentucky Mist Moonshine" branded on them. That's when the University of Kentucky stuck its nose into the distillery's business for reasons I can't even begin to understand.
UK threatened legal action against Kentucky Mist Moonshine for its pursuit of a federal trademark registration for the Kentucky Mist Moonshine mark for hats, hooded sweatshirts, jackets, pants, shirts, shoes and socks in international trademark Class 25 based on its registration of the Kentucky Mist mark.As a result of the threat letters, Kentucky Mist has filed suit against the university, requesting either that the school's trademarks be declared invalid or, the more likely outcome, reform the registration to limit the protection of the marks to apparel that clearly attempts to trade off of an implied endorsement or association with the school. This only makes sense in terms of the purpose of trademark law, of course, which centers around customer confusion and the ability of a brand to identify itself as the source to the consumer. Kentucky Mist apparel, on the other hand, does nothing to even remotely associate itself with the school. This is all about the control of the word "Kentucky," which is the name of a location and is so generic as to never deserve trademark protection to begin with.
The school's response amounts to stating that it registered the mark and that's the end of the story.
In an email message provided to the Herald-Leader on Oct. 29, UK spokesman Jay Blanton said the university has used the word Kentucky as a trademark to identify its athletic uniforms and various articles of clothing sold to fans since at least 1940. Blanton's letter said the university registered in 1997 with the U.S. Patent and Trademark offices for the word Kentucky for clothing, educational services and collegiate athletic services.But that's not really true. Established trademarks are reviewed all the time, particularly in the cases of glaringly generic marks such as the name of a state or other geographical location. The message went on to note just how much money the university generates by licensing the use of the word "Kentucky" for clothing, claiming that their tradedmark is "incontestable." We'll find out shortly just how true that is, given that Kentucky Mist intends to contest it via this suit, but the larger point is that a government that permits so much restriction in the name of trademark needs to do a better job of not approving such general trademarks to begin with.
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: apparel, moonshine, trademark
Companies: kentucky mist moonshine, university of kentucky
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I can see it
Of course I suppose the university could argue that 'booze' is not the first thing that comes to mind upon seeing those two words together, but in that case their objection to the trademark application would seem to rest on nothing more than boneheaded possessiveness over the name of the state that both university and brewery are located in, and wouldn't that just be silly?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
UK?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
UK?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
can't copyright a common word
[ link to this | view in thread ]
They bit off more than they can swallow
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: UK?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
yeh, they told me the was taken, so i picked up the rights to of.
the university of kentucky? you and i ought to do all right.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Time to spin up the lawyers again...
Prepare to be sued to smithereens, Lexington Herald-Leader!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The University of Kentucky needs to drop this silly ass bullshit before they end up with egg on their face. The courts are going to see for exactly that and that the courts are going to declare the university's trademarks as invalid. The USPTO is also going to end up getting with some of the crap on their face for allowing the University of Kentucky to trademark the word "Kentucky". It's like trying to trademark "Michigan" or "California". The words are generic and describe a geographical location.
I also imagine that everyone who licensed the word "Kentucky" is going to be coming down on the University of Kentucky very hard. The University of Kentucky opened up a shitstorm that minute they went legal on Kentucky Mist Moonshine. They should have left well enough alone.
Morons.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Thinking they're drinking
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Grammatical Question
I am a huge fan of your use of the compound term "asshat-ish", even though I'm not sure if that's the correct use of the dash.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: can't copyright a common word
Like, say, a t-shirt with the state seal on it, for example.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Grammatical Question
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Grammatical Question
1. man-sausage
2. hate-sandwich
3. anger-bomb
Now, if you would kindly stop questioning the ideas I get from my head-brain, that would be lovely, okaybyethanks.....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Grammatical Question
I accept that language changes over time, and IMHO, the changes most worthy of migrating to Merriam-Webster are those of comedic value.
I shall begin to employ "asshat-ish" asap. I was looking for a replacement for "douchebaggy" anyways.
[ link to this | view in thread ]