Oh, Look, Two Breweries Work Out A Trademark Issue Without Lawyers, Threats, Or Asshole-ery

from the good-guys dept

Thu, Nov 3rd 2016 4:33pm — Timothy Geigner

Trademark disputes are often petty, heated, and vitriolic. We know this. Interestingly, it often seems as though the temperature level for trademark disputes is inversely proportional to how valid they are: the pettiest disputes are often the most heated. And we cover enough of those sorts of things that it can often seem like no companies out there approach a trademark issue in any other way.

But that isn't the case and it's probably useful to highlight when companies get this right. Enter Hopworks Urban Brewery in Portland, makers of a beer it has named "Abominable." Another brewery, Fremont Brewing Company, has produced a very popular seasonal brew for some time that it has entitled "Abominable Winter Ale." In other words, there is an actual potential trademark issue here, with a naming convention and vernacular unique enough to quite possibly result in some confusion. So Hopworks set its lawyers to work, right?

Wrong.

Don’t get your barley in a bunch; Fremont Brewing says it was a friendly conversation and not an acrimonious kerfuffle. In a Twitter statement, Fremont Brewing said:

“Our friends at @HopworksBeer trademarked the name before us and we worked out a friendly transition. Now, we have to brew a beer together:)”

Collaboration, not litigation!

In other words, Hopworks contacted Fremont to let them know of the issue, behaved like human beings, and everything has now been worked out. All without the cost of billable hours and court fees, too. It's almost like there can be a common sense approach to these types of trademark issues, one that doesn't require lawsuits.

The craft beer industry in particular should be both particularly conducive to this sort of friendly interaction and particularly in need of it. It's been noticed for some time that the industry's explosion has poised it for an explosion in trademark disputes. Unless, that is, the typically friendly breweries take their cues from Hopworks and Fremont on how to settle them.

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: agreement, breweries, trademark
Companies: fremont brewing, hopworks urban brewery

19 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2016 @ 5:07pm

Wow. With the election coming up, it's nice to get some good news for once instead of the constant reminder that both candidates are even worse than those who disliked 'em from the get-go thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Thad, 3 Nov 2016 @ 5:17pm
  
  Re:
  Hey, the Cubs won the World Series, too.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ben (profile), 3 Nov 2016 @ 6:51pm
    
    Re: Re:
    ... and is that good news?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dark Helmet (profile), 4 Nov 2016 @ 6:26am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yes, jerk, it is :)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Oninoshiko (profile), 4 Nov 2016 @ 8:09am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Considering they haven't won one since it was actually an issue that someone wanted to bring his goat to the game, yeah, they're due (which is to say 1908).
      
      I'm not even a fan, and I can raise a pint for 'em.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
discordian_eris (profile), 3 Nov 2016 @ 5:57pm

"It's almost like there can be a common sense approach to these types of trademark issues, one that doesn't require lawsuits."

But only if very large quantities of alcohol are imbibed. Huh, maybe we should give that a try. If nothing else legal briefs would be much more entertaining.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2016 @ 6:17pm

The response to a trademark case is inversely proportional to the liklihood that consumers would actually be confused.

As the chance of confusion decreases, the amount of lawyering incrases exponentially.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2016 @ 6:31pm

My experience with lawyers...
Here's the simple fact behind the legal profession: Neither the lawyers on your side of the table, nor the lawyers on your opponent's side of the table have any interest in a fast sensible resolution of any dispute. Both plaintiffs attorneys and defense attorneys will say and do things they know will piss off the other side. Yes, even *your* lawyer will do this; even when it is not in your best interest.

Acrimony pays.
More arguments = more billable hours.

It's true in IP law. It's true in just about every field of law there is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2016 @ 5:05am
  
  Re: My experience with lawyers...
  Honestly, it's true in the medical industry as well. No interest in cures, only treatments. Longer you keep a patient on treatments, more money they can rake in.
  
  Same thing, different industry.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- killthelawyers (profile), 4 Nov 2016 @ 6:19am
  
  Re: My experience with lawyers...
  Well, my anecdote of being a lawyer is this: generally, if you are coming to a lawyer with an issue, it's not something that was just going to magically go away. While I have some seen some monumental pissing contests, I've also seen quite a few issues resolved long before a lawsuit was filed and many others resolved shortly after one was filed.
  
  Litigation is rarely dependent on milking a few cases for every dollar, it's based on getting enough cases to be busy every moment of the day. In the latter model, putting out fires as efficiently as possible is *good* not bad. It makes the client happy, which leads to more cases, even in small things like this because its usually an insurance carrier, not the actual company, paying the bills. It also lets us maintain our sanity because, really, we don't like staring at the same case forever.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2016 @ 8:40pm

Won't someone think of the lawyers?
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JoeCool (profile), 3 Nov 2016 @ 9:38pm
  
  Re: Won't someone think of the lawyers?
  
  All without the cost of billable hours and court fees, too.
  
  You're putting those poor destitute lawyers out of business!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
athe, 3 Nov 2016 @ 9:36pm

Interference with business model?
Expect a lawsuit from a number of lawyers claiming interference with their business model - how dare these companies work through such a trademark "dispute" without involving those most able to provide a "settlement".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael, 4 Nov 2016 @ 4:23am

"Fremont Brewing says it was a friendly conversation and not an acrimonious kerfuffle"

Flag on the play.

Nobody that spends more than 8 hours per day in a brewery has ever used the words "acrimonious kerfuffle"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2016 @ 5:08am
  
  Re:
  I don't know. I could see some bespectacled brew wizard with a grey beard down to mid-chest using a phrase like that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
djx, 4 Nov 2016 @ 8:21am

Tried this twice
My organization has twice seen infringements and tried to deal with them this way.

In both cases we used a lawyer, but were quite soft in terms of our request, asking the other party to change but being open to their taking quite some time to do so, so as not to burdensome to them. That is, trying to make it as low-cost and painless to change.

In the first instance, the other party was great - thanked us for the heads up about confusion, which was in neither of our interests, and changed their name after some number of months, timing the change with a big event they were planning anyway so they could rebrand in a splashy way. I wish them well.

The second time, the other party denied any possible confusion, said they were a start-up/small business so should get some slack, insisted they'd done careful legal due diligence on the name but couldn't find the name of the attorney who had helped them just a few years before. Basically BS and lies. Not cool.

That we want to escalate to litigation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2016 @ 12:34pm

No lawyers or asshole-ery? People acting like adults? Is this one those tricky April Fool's jokes that happen in November?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kronomex, 4 Nov 2016 @ 2:27pm

Neat. One of the few times that the losers are the lawyers. Well done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2016 @ 2:39am

Collaboration Not Litigation Ale
This is actually not an isolated case in the craft beer world. A few years back Avery Brewing and Russian River both had a beer called the same name. And the beers were even of the same style.
After a phone call they decided to make a collaboration brew. It was well received and they are still making this beer today. It's called "Collaboration not Litigation Ale".

https://www.averybrewing.com/beers/collaboration-not-litigation-ale

http://www.ratebeer.com/beer /avery-collaboration-not-litigation/68829/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]