Brewery Sues Competitor Over Schooner Logos And Use Of The Word 'Head'

from the come-sail-away dept

Wed, Jun 7th 2017 6:29pm — Timothy Geigner

Another day, another sigh-inducing trademark dispute in the craft beer industry. As we've discussed for some time now, the beer industry has a massive problem on its hands in the form of a deluge of trademark disputes between competitors. This has largely been the result of a huge uptick in craft brewers opening new businesses saddled alongside the tradition of creatively naming different beers and the limitations of the English language. Sometimes, however, you get a good old fashioned trademark dispute where one side is simply claiming similarities so tenuous as to be laughable.

Introducing Shipyard Brewing Co., which is suing Logboat Brewing Company claiming that because the latter both uses an image of a schooner on its label for its Shiphead beer brand and because the name of the beer includes the word "head" at all, that its a trademark violation. Let's deal with each in order, mostly because simply putting the beer labels side by side should allow us to take the schooner portion of the claim off the list of things we'll take seriously quite easily.

Do both labels use the image of a schooner? Yup! Are those uses, or the labels themselves, even remotely similar? Hell no! Shipyard's label is a picture of a schooner on the water, whereas Logboat's label is dominated by an image of a woman with a schooner for a head. You know, "shiphead." The beer labels themselves aren't remotely similar so as to rise to the level of trademark infringement.

Which Shipyard likely realizes, which is why they're lacing this trademark suit with the following claims: its the combination of the label and Logboat's use of the word "head" and the name it gave its outdoor seating area near the brewery that creates the customer confusion.

Shipyard further owns and has used other trademarks that contain the term HEAD as a suffix in relation to its beers, including, but not limited to, PUMPKINHEAD, MELONHEAD, and APPLEHEAD. Shipyard’s family of SHIPYARD, SHIP, and HEAD marks (collectively “Shipyard’s Trademarks”) all were in use and/or registered prior to Logboat’s earliest priority date of February 20, 2014.

The suit goes on to note that Logboat refers to its outdoor eating area as "the shipyard", which, yeah, the brewery has a boating theme. But with all of the examples of "ship" and "head" related trademarks owned by Shipyard, what the company chiefly demonstrates is that it does not have a trademark registered for "shiphead." The owner of that mark is Logboat, actually, which was registered in 2014 at which time no opposition was raised against it by Shipyard or anyone else. Logboat took to social media to explain:

“Logboat’s Shiphead Ginger Wheat trademark was registered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office following examination by a trademark examiner,” the statement said, “and successfully passed though the public opposition phase. Logboat’s mark was never challenged during the registration process as being likely to cause confusion with the trademark of any other party.”

What Shipyard is trying to do is string two or three tenuous trademark issues together and weave it into a valid trademark lawsuit. It's very unlikely to work, however, given how dissimilar the logos and marks are.

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, head, schooners, shiphead, shipyard, trademark
Companies: logboat brewing, shipyard brewing

51 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Andy, 7 Jun 2017 @ 6:52pm

Error?
"What Shiphead is trying to do is string two or three tenuous trademark issues together and weave it into a valid trademark lawsuit. It's very unlikely to work, however, given how dissimilar the logos and marks are."

Don't you mean "Shipyard is trying to do"? Or am I missing something?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2017 @ 7:07pm

This is like one of those conspiracy theories that just link vague associations together in a long string of absurdities to make a claim.

"Well you see, Trump has 5 words in his last name, and 5 is the number of letters in demon, so clearly Trump is a demon!"

No, Trump is an idiot, which is also five letters, but there is no conspiracy.

Shipyard, Longboat's beer labeling has nothing to do with you. And while I've never tried either of your products, I'm inclined to think the Peruvian ginger, coriander, and lemon beer from Longboat is probably better than your generic piss ale.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2017 @ 7:08pm

Re:
or "five letters in his last name..."

I blame the second whiskey.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2017 @ 7:25pm

Um yea
I can see how a shithead might confuse a shiphead with a shipyard.

Therefore one might conclude that shipyard's CEO is quite likely a shithead.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pixelation, 7 Jun 2017 @ 8:01pm

Wow
Shipyard being Shitheads. Perhaps we should begin calling it Shityard.

Mediocre beer. :/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mononymous Tim (profile), 7 Jun 2017 @ 8:09pm

Uhoh
Gee, things aren't going too well for Shipyard in their reviews on Facebook.

https://www.facebook.com/pg/ShipyardBrewing/reviews/

And check this out.

http://portland.bangordailynews.com/2016/12/14/news/who-should-have-to-pay-for-2-6-million-bottl es-worth-of-bad-pumpkin-beer/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2017 @ 8:56pm

Re: Wow
This is a disgusting comment. There are many along this same vein in many articles, someone very concerned with feces. It would seem that the TechDirt Mean Girls are not quite as vocal as before, but we have someone here preoccupied with feces. In the bed, on the head, some strange obsession with feces. I guess this could be coming from a TechDirt Mean Girl like Wendy, she uses profanity a lot. But this is not a typical Mean Girl behavior, even they had more class than that. Really nasty, and one one ever hides these disgusting comments. The likely reason is that "feces" is another "promoted" post category. Could you confirm that, please, Michael Masnick? That you pay someone to promote posts about feces. It sure look like you do, Michael, because we see a lot of hidden posts while you preserve the feces. Do you have another explanation other than this is part of your strategy? How much does a "feces" post cost, anyway?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 7 Jun 2017 @ 9:11pm

Re: Re: Wow
Number of times Pixelation mentioned 'shit': 2

Number of time you mentioned 'feces': 7.

But yeah, they are the one with the fixation... and you wonder why you keep getting reported.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2017 @ 9:14pm

I think they look similar
It does look similar, though, don't you think? Both images have a lot in common, for example, bands above and below, similar tone in the background, and a nearly identical theme - pictures of old ships associated with beer. I could easily believe that the picture on the right was another product offered by the same company as on the left. Personally, I'm more attracted to the picture with the lady, it looks like it may be a more interesting beer, maybe a little more exciting. I would say that the image on the right looks like the "Pirate" version of the image on the left. Same basic thing, just a little more racy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2017 @ 9:30pm

Re: Uhoh
That article looks to me to describe how Shipyard has extremely high quality standards for their beers, which I can personally vouch for. They are so concerned with their customers getting a great product that they didn't ship beer that wasn't perfect. Good for them, right? Now they try to get their insurance to pay them back for their high standards, I don't know if that is reasonable or not, but it sure speaks well of their standards, doesn't it?

Shipyard is a GREAT brewery, and it makes FANTASTIC and delicious products. Of course others want to look like them, but it takes more than a similar label to replicate this level of quality. That's what this lawsuit is about, right, try to point out a cheap knockoff that tries to unfairly leverage a well known, respected, and very high quality brand, like Mercedes, or Dior.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2017 @ 9:35pm

Re: Re: Re: Wow
Ah, anothe Mean Girl. You do understand that feces is a polite term, and the term "shit", especially when likened to the name of a highly reputable company, is at least impolite and for sure defamatory. You understand the difference? Or are you the same poster who put the comment up to begin with? Come on, you Mean Girl you, defend yourself as you always do with some ridiculous lady argument.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ryunosuke (profile), 7 Jun 2017 @ 10:27pm

hey, if Shipyard wants to equate their brew to a ship's head, by all means let them have it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 7 Jun 2017 @ 10:28pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow
So is 'mean girl' your insult of the week, and do you actually think you sound mature flinging it around? Hate to break it to you, but I imagine pretty much everyone here is past the 'cooties' phase, so accusing all and sundry of being females isn't exactly going to get you very far.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2017 @ 10:34pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow
You are hilarious, Mean GIrl. "Sound mature flinging it around" and "cooties", ah, you are a spectacular example of a TechDirt Mean Girl. Do I think I sound mature. Hmm.. It's been quite a long time since I considered that, Mean Girl. "Accusing all and sundry", wow, do you feel ridiculous calling yourself "That One Guy"? Because you sure look ridiculous. "That One Guy" indeed. Guys don't say "cooties" or "all and sundry". Hilarious, Mean Girl Poser. Thank you for a good laugh.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2017 @ 11:46pm

A trademark for Pumpkinhead? MGM might want to have a word with them.

"But MGM's Pumpkinhead is a movie!" you might say. "Nobody's going to confuse it with Pumpkinhead beer!" In which case, I'd respond with the suggestion that you might not have seen many trademark dispute cases...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Stephen T. Stone (profile), 8 Jun 2017 @ 12:23am

You know…
If you spent half as much time putting together a coherent argument as you do crafting your trollish comments, you might end up with at least one-quarter of a coherent argument.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 8 Jun 2017 @ 12:44am

Re: You know…
Another Mean Girl! Wow, what a great name you have, Stephen T. Stone. Very manly. You did read my argument, right? That the word "sh*t" is inappropriate in a public forum discussing adult subjects, and should be flagged and hidden. But instead it is promoted by TechDirt, especially when used to defame a noteworthy company with a great product. My argument was against the use of profanity as a weapon to defame others, and to make reference to legitimate company names by "smearing" them with sh*t. So, you male imposter, make your argument in favor of sh*t. Smear it all over the walls of this toilet, like always. Use your silly lady arguments, please, go ahead. I give you floor to smear away.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Stephen T. Stone (profile), 8 Jun 2017 @ 12:55am

I have a simple response to this.

the word "sh*t" is inappropriate in a public forum discussing adult subjects

Bullshit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jun 2017 @ 1:31am

Well, the cans are similar shapes.
I went to but a beer the other day, picked up the right shaped can, and was disappointed that the contents tasted like warm carrot juice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 8 Jun 2017 @ 1:39am

Re: Re: You know…
I love the fact that you pretend to take the high ground, all the while acting as a raging misogynist who is essentially claiming that nobody female can have a valid argument.

You're probably too dumb to realise how stupid that looks, but you sure love yourself some girly movies, which explains why you overcompensate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Stephen T. Stone (profile), 8 Jun 2017 @ 1:46am

Not cool!
You did not need to insult warm carrot juice like that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jun 2017 @ 2:08am

Re: Not cool!
Yeah, someone might have held the trademark for warm carrot juice...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 8 Jun 2017 @ 2:09am

Re: Re: Re: You know…
Yowza, three Mean Girl attacks, one after another. "Raging Misogynist"? Wow, that's mean. "Nobody female can have a valid argument"? Really? Did I say that? I said YOU (meaning you 3 male imposters) don't have a valid argument, which you DEMONSTRATE AGAIN! "Overcompensate"? You are an ugly lady, Wendy, no matter who you pretend to me. I say Mean Girls, and the three of you show up. Does that tell you anything, you POSERS? Go ahead, defend some more profanity in place of an ACTUAL argument. Call me another name, racist, maybe? Islamaphobic maybe? You are so predictable, you MEAN GIRL POSERS!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Stephen T. Stone (profile), 8 Jun 2017 @ 2:16am

When your words betray you, maybe you should stop saying things.

"Nobody female can have a valid argument"? Really? Did I say that?

You made comments in the past about “feminine arguments”. You insist that everyone who disagrees with you is a woman (the same woman, in fact). The “Mean Girls” label that you have relied on as of late reinforces the prior two points. We do not need you to say you believe that women cannot have a valid argument; your comments have already implied as much.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 8 Jun 2017 @ 2:20am

Re: Re: Re: Re: You know…
"Did I say that?"

Yes.

"Use your silly lady arguments"

I somehow doubt you're trying to say that "lady arguments" are valid, since if you did you wouldn't be so desperate to pretend that we weren't male.

I do love the fact that your reaction is to act like a hormonal teenage girl, though. It must be sad for you, wanting so desperately to be like the characters in your favourite movie, but then realising this is impossible. Having your only release to try and act so manly on your favourite blog.

I pity you. It's OK, I don't mind being the target for your therapy if this is what you need to face the world. One day, you'll be able to face reality again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 8 Jun 2017 @ 2:26am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You know…
Yes, sad, that I "implied" some imaginary argument. While you defend using sh*t as an argument, and I say it's profane and useless. Are you kidding? You "pity" me? That's not very manly, is it? Oh, sorry, is your actual gender "irrelevant"? Is your posing as men and using terms like "shaft" and "head" not noteworthy? You are the same silly ladies that use arguments you got from Madonna about Nazis and pink pussy hats. You have NOTHING TO SAY, but you go on and on, who could possibly embarrass themselves so much? Maybe some POSERS? Hahaha, you guys (ladies) crack me up. Try to say one thing that argues for your point about using profanity, and is not a Mean Girl tactic. I don't think you can. All you can do is go on and on and on and on with nothing to say but Mean Girl stuff. That was my point. And you continue to make it for me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jun 2017 @ 2:36am

Re: Error?
As a side note, does this validate the trademark case?
After all, the author was confused... :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Stephen T. Stone (profile), 8 Jun 2017 @ 2:43am

Oi.

Yes, sad, that I "implied" some imaginary argument. While you defend using sh*t as an argument, and I say it's profane and useless. Are you kidding?

No.

The word “shit” may be profane, sure. A word’s status as a profanity, however, does not make it “off-limits” in an argument. We can all understand “bullshit” as a form of shorthand for “fallacious, nonsensical, or otherwise ridiculous arguments or statements”. The word’s profane status also gives it power when used in sparing doses. Say it 600 times and it loses any capacity to shock; say it once at the right time and it punches you in the gut.

“Bullshit” serves a useful purpose in arguments. Implying that women cannot craft an argument does not.

You "pity" me? That's not very manly, is it?

“Feeling things other than contempt? GAWD, what a woman!”

You are the same silly ladies that use arguments you got from Madonna about Nazis and pink pussy hats.

…the hell, did I walk into the 1980s? QUICK, SOMEONE STOP MAKING DONALD TRUMP FAMOUS!

You have NOTHING TO SAY, but you go on and on

Pot, kettle, vantablack.

Try to say one thing that argues for your point about using profanity, and is not a Mean Girl tactic.

Did that, moving on, try to keep up.

All you can do is go on and on and on and on with nothing to say but Mean Girl stuff.

Says the guy who keeps flinging insults like “Mean Girl” and making up nonsensical arguments to keep trolling the comments section of a technology blog that he obviously hates but keeps wasting his valuable time trolling because he has little else better to do with his vapid life other than staying up in the wee hours of the morning to troll a bunch of people and jerk himself off at how many replies he gets. That about the gist of your entire operation here, or are you going to call “bullshit” on that?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 8 Jun 2017 @ 2:46am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You know…
"While you defend using sh*t as an argument"

When did I do that? Be specific.

"Oh, sorry, is your actual gender "irrelevant"?"

To any argument I make that's not related to my gender? Absolutely. The set of genitals anyone here possesses has nothing to do with the legal and technical issues being discussed on this forum.

Yet, you're the one who keeps bringing gender up. Almost as if it's always at the forefront of your mind. I wonder what deep-seated issues have left you with such a low opinion of women yet retain an obsession with their entertainment media.

I apologise to other readers on this forum who wanted to read a discussion on trademark law rather than your gender issues, but since it's clear that your system isn't providing the mental healthcare you so desperately require I'm happy to help.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 8 Jun 2017 @ 3:39am

Re: Error?
Blech, sorry, fixed. Got my two ships crossed in the night or something....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 8 Jun 2017 @ 4:20am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You know…
"say it once at the right time and it punches you in the gut."

Really, Mean Girl? Not actually. A word "punches you in the gut"? Only in your pretty little head.

" jerk himself off at how many replies he gets"

You are displaying your sexual starvation, Wendy. I said nothing sexual, and yet again, you bring up sex-acts, just like before. Not attractive!

And another fake apology, you use that "Mean Girl" tactic a lot, right? Pretty old, used again and again, not attractive either!

My post was about the mis-use of profanity in the place of an argument, specifically the word sh*t. You have replied umpteen times with no rational argument at all. You talk about excrement, about masturbation, about genitals, you really scream sexual frustration. I don't. I am on the side of reasonable discourse, trying to serve the public good of discouraging the use of excrement and inappropriate sexual language.

Neither of you denied being females posing as men. Your male names that you apparently made up, along with your male profiles, are obvious to even the casual observer. Embarrassed a little, Mean Girls?

This is my small contribution to the public, to try to point out the inappropriate use of excrement as an argument. You, meanwhile, extend excrement into sexual-act behavior and exposing genitals, also inappropriate.

Do you even understand how far out of normal healthy culture you are? Go ahead, defend excrement again, but do it without any sexual verbiage and with a clear argument. Do you have any non-disgusting non-sexual-act argument at all? Have you ever?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jun 2017 @ 5:10am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You know…
Do you even understand how far out of normal healthy culture you are?

We can observe your true nature from your previous attempts at discourse. Talking and replying incessantly to yourself is not considered normal or healthy in most cultures.

Shiva really needs to consider hiring someone else to be his patsy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 8 Jun 2017 @ 5:23am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You know…
Ah, the next level of the non-argument argument. Reply as an Anonymous Coward, and misdirect the discussion to the fantasy that I am Shiva, or I work for Shiva. That is also not an argument, Wendy, not even a good try. You're fantasizing an argument, not attractive at all. Think hard, think long, do you have even a SINGLE thing to say related to THIS POST?

My point is that excrement is not argument. Fantasy is not argument. The depiction of sexual acts is not argument.

And you, you strange multi-faced poster (and poser), do you have any argument AT ALL?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Stephen T. Stone (profile), 8 Jun 2017 @ 5:35am

I have literally nothing else better to do at the moment. Lucky me.

A word "punches you in the gut"?

…have you never really heard the “gutpunch” metaphor before?

I said nothing sexual, and yet again, you bring up sex-acts, just like before. Not attractive!

You can bind yourself by whatever arbitrary rules of discussion you want. But you cannot expect everyone else to play along. Oh, and the physical attractiveness of an individual, be they male or female, does not affect the quality of their arguments.

"Mean Girl" tactic

You really do need to define this phrase. Also, you need to define why that definition extends only to women.

You talk about excrement, about masturbation, about genitals

What does it say about you that you obsess over those things rather than address the substance of his arguments (or this article itself)? I mean, for someone who claims to hate profane content, you love to bring it up at any given moment.

I am on the side of reasonable discourse

…says the poster whose specific writing voice links them to posts where they ranted about being the descendant of Alexander Hamilton, figuratively fellated Donald Trump and his family without provocation, refused to address how Shiva Ayyadurai had nothing to do with the development or deployment of the major email protocols, and insinuated that women cannot form cogent arguments because they are women.

trying to serve the public good of discouraging the use of excrement

Then why are you still posting?

Neither of you denied being females posing as men.

See, this is a cute trick. First you imply that women cannot form cogent arguments because they are women, then you imply that all posters are women. Without giving you the kind of information than Facebook requires for an account, no one here can confirm their sex, and you can always say that any given poster is a woman and thus unable to argue in any meaningful way.

But how do we know you are not a woman and, thus, unable to form the kinds of cogent arguments that you claim all other women are unable to make? How do we know, for sure, that you are a manly man with a manly brain between your head and a manly head between your legs?

Embarrassed a little, Mean Girls?

I would be more embarassed of denigrating half the world’s population just to troll a tech blog.

Do you even understand how far out of normal healthy culture you are?

You are trolling the comments section of a tech blog that, by your own admission, you want silenced by a man who has no factual claim to inventing email as we know and use it today. Do you understand how far out of normal healthy culture you are?

Do you have any non-disgusting non-sexual-act argument at all? Have you ever?

Do you have any argument that has an ounce of substance and does not rely on ad hominem attacks, pointless tangents about nonsense, and “I’m a better manly man than any of you worthless dried-up cunts will ever be” implications? Have you ever?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 8 Jun 2017 @ 5:39am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You know…
"Really, Mean Girl? Not actually. A word "punches you in the gut"? Only in your pretty little head."

Strange, you're replying to me but quoting someone else. Do you actually realise you've having your ranting fit against more than one person, or are you simply incompetent at using the internet?

"You are displaying your sexual starvation, Wendy"

What is your obsession with that woman, and why do you have to pretend that she's the person you're addressing in threads she's not participated in? I mean, seriously, she hasn't said a word here, but you feel the need to personally attack her.

"You talk about excrement, about masturbation, about genitals, you really scream sexual frustration"

I haven't said any such things. Perhaps you should either stop lying, or take enough of a break between your spittle-flecked ranting to notice who you're talking to. I haven't said any of the things you're accusing me of, yet you have no argument to offer against the words I have said.

"Neither of you denied being females posing as men"

Well, you clearly have no idea who you're talking to anyway, so what would be the point?

But, for what reason would we need to? Are you such a misogynistic weakling that you feel that a female target for your ravings makes them stronger? Does it make you feel more manly if you're able to best females rather than men? Are you so insecure in your sexuality?

"This is my small contribution to the public"

It's pretty good, but what is it meant to be? Performance art, or a case study into how untreated mental illness progresses?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 8 Jun 2017 @ 5:40am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You know…
You oppose the idea that you're actually Shiva... by accusing the poster of being Wendy?

"Fantasy is not argument."

Then why is every post of yours a fantasy?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Stephen T. Stone (profile), 8 Jun 2017 @ 5:48am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You know…

the fantasy that I am Shiva, or I work for Shiva

This idea really is not that much of a fantasy. Your specific writing style and trolling modus operandi links you to a series of trolling posts across numerous articles on this site. And your specific brand of trolling did not begin until after Techdirt posted that “First Amendment fight” post.

You capitalize certain nouns and construct sentences and paragraphs in ways that suggests English is not your first language. You consistently stylize Techdirt as “TechDirt”. In recent weeks, you have implied that all women are too dumb to form a cogent argument, yet somehow smart enough to win arguments using advanced forms of deceit and trickery. And a great many of of your comments mention Shiva Ayyadurai and his ongoing attempt to silence Techdirt’s legally-protected speech. All of this suggests that you are either an agent of Shiva Ayyadurai given marching orders to troll this site’s comments sections using specific talking points and tactics, or you are Shiva Ayyadurai himself and you have…a great many issues to work out, not the least of which is your all-too-apparent hatred of women.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jun 2017 @ 5:54am

Someone needs to look into their operations...
They are claiming to have a trademark on using beer kegs to ship to Methheads....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jun 2017 @ 6:03am

Quite a list there

Shipyard further owns and has used other trademarks that contain the term HEAD as a suffix in relation to its beers, including, but not limited to, PUMPKINHEAD, MELONHEAD, and APPLEHEAD.

Did they use D*CKHEAD yet? Or are they afraid people will think the beer tastes like their management?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Christenson, 8 Jun 2017 @ 6:17am

Moosehead Beer, anyone?
It's *far* more famous, and since the theme is head, just as confusing! lol

I can also name several fine "Heavy Seas" stouts...

I think the solution is simple enough: Brewery name and location prominently on the label means no consumer confusion.

NOBODY buys beer because of the picture on the label, though the pretty ones are nice!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jun 2017 @ 6:22am

Just one of many frivolous trademark lawsuits that are just a big steaming pile of ship.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jun 2017 @ 7:08am

Re: Re: Wow
For shitheads like you, it's free.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jun 2017 @ 7:21am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You know…
Methinks you have a repressed closeted lust for Shiva and accuse others of gender mismanagement as a lame attempt to assuage your guilt over a totally normal human function.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Steerpike (profile), 8 Jun 2017 @ 9:14am

Shipyard also subsequently filed two trademark applications for SHIPHEAD and has filed to cancel Logboat's trademark registration.

Appears as though they're using their greater market power to try to bury Logboat in legal fees.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Steerpike (profile), 8 Jun 2017 @ 9:16am

Re: I think they look similar
You can identify similarities between many trademarks. The question is whether they're so similar that there is a likelihood of confusion on the part of the beer buyers. I think that's quite a stretch here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Champion, 8 Jun 2017 @ 10:22am

lots a comment sdidnt read them
but i think the pron industry might have prior art ...

NO GO see if i am right lol ..oh don't in the UK its gonna be terror act to look at porn
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 8 Jun 2017 @ 5:42pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You know…
"This is a disgusting comment. There are many along this same vein in many articles, someone very concerned with feces. It would seem that the TechDirt Mean Girls are not quite as vocal as before, but we have someone here preoccupied with feces. In the bed, on the head, some strange obsession with feces."

That was my point, remember, you mindless Mean Girls?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mononymous Tim (profile), 8 Jun 2017 @ 8:36pm

Dear Shipyard,
Get off my thread.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Shipyard, 8 Jun 2017 @ 11:52pm

Dear Mononymous Tim
We just wanted to suggest that you might want to actually read the article you cited. It explains, in very clear terms, how committed we are to keeping the quality of our beer so high, even if we have to lose millions of dollars to do so. We are that committed to quality and good taste, as is well known to our millions of customers.

To be clear WE paid for the beers that we did not ship, just to ensure that OUR customers got the BEST product in the industry.

Thank you for pointing that out.

Have a nice day. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2017 @ 3:21pm

Re: Dear Mononymous Tim

We just wanted to suggest that you might want to actually read the article you cited.

Sigh...

To be clear WE paid for the beers that we did not ship

..because it was your idea all along and you never expected your insurance company to cover it. Did you see that part of the article?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Andrei Mincov | Trademark Factory®, 18 Jun 2017 @ 10:56pm

A very interesting trademark infringement case
A very interesting trademark infringement case involving using one half of one trademark and another half of what is typically considered a "family of marks." Just like McDonald's has a stronger claim against any food items that start with "Mc"—even trademarking them, the plaintiff, SHIPyard, has a bunch of trademarks that end with "HEAD." The question is, would this be enough for them to prove likelihood of confusion with SHIPHEAD? The answer would probably depend on whether the defendant's Shiphead beer has similar can design to that of the plaintiff. If it does, then as a consumer, I'd easily be confused into thinking that SHIPHEAD beer, when placed next to, SHIPYARD, PUMPKINHEAD, MELONHEAD, and APPLEHEAD would come from the same source. As I've been saying, the more competitive the industry, the more important is the brand. Few industries today generate as many trademark disputes as the disputes between breweries. Plain and simple, you can't have a successful beer brand—unless it's trademarked. Plain and simple.
[ link to this | view in thread ]