Shipyard Brewing Loses Its Lawsuit Over Ships and The Word 'Head'
from the over-heels dept
Roughly a year ago, Shipyard Brewing Co. launched its bid for title holder of the single dumbest trademark lawsuit in the beer industry. The lawsuit against Logboat Brewing came as a result of two concerns. First, both breweries have the word "ship" on some packaging and include images of ships on that packaging as well. Lost on Shipyard appeared to be Logboat's use on its Shiphead brand was that of a woman with hair that somehow was a ship, whereas Shipyard merely had ships in water. That made the trade dress and trademarks fairly distinct. That may be the reason Shipyard coupled that concern with a second, namely that both breweries used the word "head" in their respective brands, with Shipyard having trademarks on brews such as "pumpkinhead" and "applehead." The theory, I guess, was that these two factors that on their own were not valid trademark complaints combined to form one that was.
This is where the narrator would jump in and say: "That theory was wrong." The judge presiding over the dispute didn't buy into Shipyard's claims and completely rejected Shipyard's claims in a very thorough ruling. Let's start with the trade dress issue. Do you think these cans look similar?
The answer is "of course not" and that's exactly what the ruling says:
In fact, the cans look very different from each other. Shipyard’s can is beige with a red bar at the top and bottom. Logboat’s can is white, with a black band towards the top and towards the bottom. SHIPYARD appears in an arc of blue letters of fairly uniform size, in a clean, straight font, outlined in white with a dark shadow. SHIPHEAD appears in wavy black letters outlined in white, with the first and last letters significantly larger than the rest, and the last three letters in the words “SHIP” and “HEAD” sloping downward in keeping with the triangular space between the sails of the pictured hairdo. The “S” in Shiphead has the tail of a marine animal. Prominent on the Shipyard can is an image of a ship in water. Prominent on Logboat’s can is an image of a woman carrying three cans of beer in one hand, with fish to one side, and with her dark hair styled in the form of a ship. No reasonable person viewing either can could confuse one for the other.
Okay, okay, but Shiphead said it's not just about the trade dress of the design, but also the names! The names are so similar, no? No.
Shipyard argues that its SHIPYARD mark and Logboat’s SHIPHEAD GINGER WHEAT mark “look and sound alike” because they share “six out of eight letters.” But no reasonable juror could conclude that the terms “yard” and “head” independently are similar in look or sound, outside of the negligible fact that they both end with the letter “d.” The only real similarity between SHIPYARD and SHIPHEAD GINGER WHEAT is the term “ship,” and Shipyard has admitted that “ship” is a generic term, not subject to trademark protection....
Shipyard refers to a place where ships were built and repaired, a physical space. The term has been used in the English language since at least 1647. See Merriam-Webster dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shipyard (last accessed April 26, 2018). The term “Shiphead,” on the other hand, is not part of the English language. See Merriam-Webster dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionarysShiphead. The term was invented by an artist, a friend of the Logboat founders, to describe a fanciful vision of a woman with hair coiffed in the shape of a ship.
You know you're in trouble when the judge is mocking your claims by breaking out the non-existent Merriam-Webster's definition of a word you claim infringes on your trademark.
Judge Nanette K. Laughrey went on to note that the beers are primarily sold in completely different markets and there's little evidence of competition (or even that Logboat had ever heard of Shipyard beer). The ruling is filled with various quips that suggests Judge Laughrey is perplexed as to how anyone could have though this was a worthwhile lawsuit to file. It dismantles Shipyard's argument piece by piece. For example, Shipyard claimed that there was a likelihood of confusion because of the "public recognition and renown" of its brand, and the Judge basically snorts "what renown?" and points out that the company failed to present any such evidence:
Shipyard submits deposition testimony indicating that it has expended more than $1 million in advertising “in years past.” ... However, Shipyard claims to have been using the SHIPYARD mark since 1992.... Yet, Shipyard does not direct the Court to any evidence indicating when, during the 26 years it purports to have been doing business, it spent dollars on advertising.... Nor does Shipyard explain what the nature of the advertising was, or where it was directed. There is no evidence in the record indicating that Shipyard directed any advertising efforts at Missouri consumers.
Not enough? If the beer is so renown in Missouri (where Logboat sells its beer), surely there must be lots of sales there? Except... no.
Yet, although Shipyard initiated this action in May 2017, Shipyard has supplied evidence of sales from only 2016 and 2017.... (“Shipyard has sold thousands of cases of beer in Missouri.”) (... which state that Shipyard sold 1,247 cases of beer in Missouri in 2016, and fewer than 1,000 cases of beer in Missouri in 2017); ... (“ZEROREZ's market share has increased from 3% in 2006 to roughly 20% at the time the Complaint was filed.”). Thus, even assuming that Shipyard made all of the referenced 2017 sales before it brought this action, the record at best shows that Shipyard has sold fewer than 2,250 cases of beer in Missouri. Shipyard has not provided any evidence suggesting that this is a sizable number. Furthermore, Shipyard has supplied no evidence of sales from outside of Missouri.
Yes, that's the judge mocking the size of Shipyard's Missouri sales.
Shipyard's attempt to claim that the smoking gun was the fact that Logboat briefly called the yard in front of its taproom "The Shipyard" also gets a pretty decent benchslapping:
The fact that, by July 2015 (when Shipyard apprised Logboat of its infringement suspicions), Logboat was referring to the grassy area in front of its taproom as “The Shipyard,” and the fact that the founders thought the name “fit with the theme of [their] brewery” does not amount to evidence of intent to confuse customers looking to purchase SHIPYARD beer. The fact that, for a limited time, a grassy area in front of the taproom was described as a “yard” is unremarkable, and the fact that a brewery named “Logboat” called an adjacent patch of grass the “Shipyard” is not evidence—direct or indirect—of intent to confuse customers of Shipyard beer into purchasing Logboat beer instead. Indeed, Logboat had ceased describing the yard as the “Shipyard” by January 2016, and thereafter called it “The Park” instead—which evidences a desire to avoid confusion. As discussed above, “shipyard” is a word in the English language, and the use of the term in reference to a space adjacent to a taproom, rather than in relation to any product purportedly competing with Shipyard, does not constitute even indirect evidence of intent to confuse.
The Judge also points out that that Shipyard's claim isn't just silly, it's a massive overreach in an attempt to prevent Logboat from even experimenting with different flavored beers:
Finally, Shipyard’s contention that Logboat’s limited sales of Raspberry Shiphead Ginger Wheat beer and Jasmine Shiphead Ginger Wheat beer are “in direct competition and overlap with Shipyard’s HEAD flavored beers, thereby knowingly expanding its use and intentionally amplifying the likelihood of confusion,” is unconvincing. Logboat did not co-opt Shipyard’s “—HEAD” branding style. It did not call the beers “Rasberryhead” or “Jasminehead.” Instead, Logboat added a descriptive element to its own properly registered mark to reflect what Shipyard itself describes as “a unique flavor profile . . . .” . Accepting Shipyard’s argument would require precluding Logboat either from adding any new flavors to its ginger wheat beer, or from accurately describing any new flavors it adds to its ginger wheat beer. In other words, Shipyard’s proposed prohibition against adding any terms descriptive of flavor or aroma to the Shiphead Ginger Wheat beer would prevent Logboat from experimenting and innovating with the beer itself—an unreasonable and untenable result for an action to protect a trademark.
Somewhat strangely, the folks at Shipyard both haven't taken to the judge's lesson on trademark law and still seem to want to exert some control over Logboat's product packaging.
“We still feel it’s an infringement and the judge didn’t,” said Fred Forsley, the founder and president of Shipyard Brewing. He said he plans to call the owners of Longboat Brewing to see if the two companies can work out an arrangement to avoid any confusion in the future.
That sounds like activity that would have been appropriate a year and a half ago, before the lawsuit was ever filed. After all, there has been a longstanding tradition of congeniality within the craft brewing business. But after it attempted to bully them with a stupid trademark lawsuit, why in the world would Logboat bother returning Shipyard's calls?
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: head, likelihood of confusion, shiphead, shipyard, trademark
Companies: logboat, shipyard brewing company
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hey, went looking for my damn fool -- er, brilliant wit in the
first link. -- Turned out I was wise. -- However, usual suspects "That One Guy", "Stephen T. Stone", and "PaulT" went round and round with an AC who began complaining about the unnecessary use here of vulgarisms. -- I've tried to suppress that too. Doesn't work, they're compulsive. -- The AC drew HILARIOUS LONG OFF-TOPIC "argument" from the ad hom fanatics, frequently pointing out that they're off-topic, while THEY accuse HIM of wasting time in middle of night! Completely diverted the topic because those three just cannot ignore dissent, but must pollute the site with shrieky defense.
Worth reading. Typical Techdirt Twaddle. You don't get PURE crap like that just anywhere. Those three have put their ten thousand hours of practice into trolling and catty ad hom, masters of the quote-and-contradict method. It's a pleasure to watch such experts destroy a site.
CONGRATS, Masnick! 20 years of your life into this cesspit, and what's it full of?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Hey, thanks, "AC", for keeping the screen name going!
Anyone new here: the fanboys were traumatized by a modicum of honesty and morality THAT badly. They'd probably never known those before. Almost every topic now has some "AC" mentioning the screen name -- usually with some LIE to attach. It's NUTTY, but that's Techdirt!
Dog my cats if'n I know why, but been going for at least 7 years now! There's only two theories:
1) they try to draw out a known wit to add some substance here, pretending it's only as foil for ad hom, and in fact, that's about all they know.
2) CRAZY fanboys actually traumatized as above.
3) It's AI so unaware how stupid a tactic it is.
Since not rational, one can only wonder.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Not much except that neither does "discussion" in the first link have ANY bearing on topic!
Just a meta-comment on Techdirt. The fanboys are the worst part!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
???
Now I'm interested in a citation, as I see NONE in the prior piece. You intrigue me. -- Or did you just see the name in the rambling there and decide to attach to me for whatever opprobrium it brings here?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
You literally cannot make shit like this up, at least not at this level of stupid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Who hated the process of due
Each trademark he'd paid
Was DMCAed
And shoved up his ass with a screw
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What part of "NO, IT'S NOT!" don't you get?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Hey, thanks, "AC", for keeping the screen name going!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cry moar blue balls.Your post teenage angst is delightful.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I’d bet real dollars to your blue balls
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Stupid question:
Intent makes a difference with regard to criminal penalties, of course, but that's not what we are talking about here, is it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionarysShiphead link could probably do with a [sic] because the URL should point to dictionary/Shiphead, and the error is in the original text.
Neither page exists, but with the slash, you end up at a word suggestion page, whereas with the s, you end up at an ol' fashioned 404 page, which I can't recall having seen in a long time now that I think about it...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
LOL
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
The fanboys aren’t the ones getting all their comments hidden, though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Shi*head
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Hey, thanks, "AC", for keeping the screen name going!
Found a tagline for your tombstone, have you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Stupid question:
Likelihood? Oh, you mean this
Yeah, the judge eliminated that first, then went even further and looked at if they had the intent to confuse, even if they failed to do so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Shi*head
The suing party is Shipyard.
The acceptable term would therefore be Shityard.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Response to: Mononymous Tim on Jul 17th, 2018 @ 9:41pm
Are not feelings more than good enough for LEOs so why not brewers?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
He said he plans to call the owners of Longboat Brewing to see if the two companies can work out an arrangement to avoid any confusion in the future.
From the sound of it that's exactly what Plan B is, persuade or 'persuade' them to drop the name. However, as noted in the article after what they tried to do if they think Longboat is going to be at all well disposed to them they are likely to be sorely disappointed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Shi*head
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Hey, thanks, "AC", for keeping the screen name going!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
As I type this, in 2020, the merriam-webster 404 page had the additional text "words fail us".
The corrected URL for "Shiphead" doesn't just offer suggestions, but states: "The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary." If it said the same in 2017/2018, I presume that specifically was the snarky point that the judge intended to make.
[ link to this | view in thread ]