Trademark Office Tosses Phyllis Schlafly's Opposition To Her Nephew's Brewery Name Trademark Application
from the family-flies dept
We discuss trademark disputes centering on the beer and alcohol industry around here because that particular industry is finding itself at something of a barrier centered on how brews are named. Still, one story from a couple of years ago was particularly head-scratching. That story was that of Schlafly beer, made by Tom Schlafly's St. Louis brewery, and the opposition to his trademark application from his aunt and cousin, Phyllis and Bruce Schlafly repsectively. Both family members filed oppositions to the trademark application, claiming that having their last name associated with an alcoholic product would negatively impact them. Bruce is an orthopedic surgeon, making one wonder exactly how bone-shattering Schlafly beer actually is. Phyllis, meanwhile, is a super-conservative commentator with an audience particularly cultivated amongst Mormons and Baptists, therefore an alcohol product with her surname on it would be ultra negative for her commentating business.
I said at the time that the brewery was going to win this fight. And, now, it certainly appears that it has.
Earlier this month, the Patent and Trademark Office dismissed opposition filed by the St. Louis native and her son, Bruce Schlafly, rejecting the argument that a trademark shouldn't be allowed because it's primarily a surname, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported. The decision doesn't mean the trademark has been awarded to the brewery, but simply removes an impediment.
The primary argument within the original opposition was that the trademark shouldn't be allowed because it consisted primarily of a surname, but this was really all about the other Schlafly's dislike of the alcohol industry. And that, thankfully, is not a basis for a trademark opposition. The opposition was especially perplexing because a lack of a trademark registration has not to date, and would not in the future, prevent Tom Schlafly from selling Schlafly-branded beer. What it would do is prevent anyone else from also doing so, meaning that preventing the trademark would potentially allow more exposure for the name to be used on alcohol products, not less.
Despite the opposition running counter to Phyllis' desires, she apparently may not be done with this just yet.
Phyllis Schlafly, who will turn 92 on Monday, declined comment, but her son and attorney, Andy Schlafly, said he may appeal.
"I'm disappointed that the decision did not come to terms with the purpose of the statute that generally prohibits obtaining a trademark in a last name," he said.
Must be a fun Thanksgiving dinner at the Schlafly house these past few years.
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, bruce schlafly, opposition, phyllis schlafly, tom schlafly, trademark, uspto
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It's a fairly typical mindset among the people who love to use and abuse IP laws, but just because they have something, that doesn't mean it's exclusive. It's theirs, but it's not *theirs*. Other people have the same rights though birth or marriage to the name as they do. One person decides to use that name to be synonymous with ignorance and bigotry, another decides to make a beer. That's their right either way, neither party should be able to block to other just because they're embarrassed by the name.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or by just changing their name. Or just by using the name because it sounds cool. Who the heck thinks anyone should have the "rights" to a name?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Andrew Joseph Galambos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But wait
Brand familiarity of alcohols should be fairly low in this demographic anyhow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Which is more shocking?
More importantly. Would anyone who disagrees with, or agrees with Phyllis Schlafly's politics assume that she had some connection with a Schlafly beer or other alcoholic beverage?
How would your name be 'tarnished' by the perfectly legal acts of another individual whose politics may be different than yours?
(disclaimer: I do not drink alcohol.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Which is more shocking?
Too late.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Which is more shocking?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What statute?
(If it does exist I may change my name to RIAA.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What statute?
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/using-surname-family-name-trademark.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What statute?
According to this definition then, Phyllis Shlafly's long time use of her name in her "The Phyllis Schlafly Report" would make it possible for her to trademark the name even as they refuse to mention the full meaning of the statute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What statute?
If I have a trademark on, say, the name of a publication that does not preclude a company in a completely different business from registering the name as their trademark as well. (That's the legal baseline, but in practice there are a number of gotchas that make can make this a bit sticky.)
As an example, remember the trademark dispute between Apple Records and Apple Computers? Apple Computers won and were able to keep using the name because they weren't in the music production business (at the time! After the iPod was released, Apple Computers and Apple Records reached an arrangement).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
if she had just kept her mouth shut...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Then, the brewery applied for a trademark. That indicates 2 things - one, a potential desire to grow and thus increase exposure. The second, is that they suddenly have a way to attack the brewery. They can't stop it making beer, but if they stop it from getting a trademark then maybe they can force a name change, which they couldn't do until the trademark was in play.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
meh .. its Missouri ..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Negative Impact
I would worry more about the negative impact of my brewery being associated with Phyllis Schlafly.
(Am I really the first person here to make that joke?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But at least I might still be able to create "Bruce Schlafly" brand douche implements, "Phyllis Schlafly" brand sticks designed to be inserted up people's asses, and "Andy Schlafly" brand shark baits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]