Beer Trademarks At Record High In UK As The Locking Up Of Language Continues To Boom

from the beer-me dept

We've been on this for some time now, but the explosion in the craft brewing industry has led to a likewise explosion in trademarks for individual brews and breweries. It's a problem very specific to the craft brewing industry for a number of reasons. First, this trademarking practice deviates from the tradition in the industry, which was one in which craft breweries were largely amicable and permissive with their cleverly named beers. Second, the explosive growth is quickly running into a roadblock of language, in which only so many words can be combined to name brews, even as the number of those brews on offer continues its exponential growth. Third, and perhaps most importantly, craft brewing is now big business, such that many macro-breweries are now gobbling up craft breweries, and those macros tend to be more litigious and more often engage in trademark bullying.

It's why, for several years now, we've talked about the coming trademark disaster for the industry, including highlighting legal experts for that industry trying to sound the alarm bells. None of this has slowed down the problem however, with the latest being that, to nobody's surprise, 2018 was a record year for beer trademarks being granted in the UK.

The number of trademarks registered for beer in the UK has hit a record high in 2018, jumping 6% to 2,519, up from 2,372 in 2017*, says RPC, the City-headquartered law firm. RPC says the continued boom in demand for craft beer and an increased range of low-alcohol beers has driven up the number of trademark registrations.

RPC adds that the rise in beer trademarks is being further driven by the demand for low-alcohol and alcohol-free beer, which has resulted in a proliferation of new low-alcohol beer brands. This demand is partly driven by younger generations, more of whom are going ‘teetotal’ or choosing to cut back on their alcohol intake for health purposes. UK sales of non-alcoholic beer, wine and spirits reached a record high of £57m last year** - an increase of 39%.

This. Is. Not. Sustainable. It just simply isn't. If this industry is going to continue to grow, with that growth being good for literally everyone other than the largest breweries, this trademark-it-all attitude is eventually going to represent a brick wall. And we've already seen what this has meant for the industry, with a severe uptick in trademark disputes between breweries. Given how this industry operated for years and years, there is literally no reason why Techdirt's pages should be filled with stories about beer-related trademark disputes. And, yet, here we are.

And it's worth remembering that more trademarks mean exponentially more legal disputes, as overly aggressive legal teams see infringement shadows everywhere they turn.

RPC adds that as the number of beer trademarks continues to grow, so too does the likelihood of more legal battles over trade marks taking place. For example, Manchester based Cloudwater Brew was recently forced to rebrand its ‘Good Call Soda’ after Heineken said the name infringed on a trade mark it had registered for one of its brands, Fosters, for a TV advertising campaign.

Again, if you want to grow this industry, this is not the way to do it. It would be much better if the industry hadn't murdered its own tradition of congeniality in favor of permission culture.

Filed Under: beer, trademark, uk

AB InBev Fails To Get 'Patagonia' Trademark Suit Dismissed

from the nice-try dept

Earlier this year, we discussed a trademark suit brought against Anheuser-Busch InBev by Patagonia, the famed outer-wear maker known best for its association with skiing and outdoor sports apparel. While we usually make a big deal about market separation when it comes to trademark enforcement, this case was notable for two reasons. First, the trade dress choices made by AB InBev for its "Patagonia" beer were quite similar to Patagonia's trademarks, not to mention that AB hosted popup locations at skiing and biking locations to sell its beer, exactly where Patagonia is so well known. Second, AB is a notorious trademark hound, gobbling up all kinds of marks and then wielding them like a cudgel against small entities. If anyone were going to be sensitive to the trademark rights of others, you would think it would be a company like AB. But not so much.

Rather than admitting its error and siding for strong trademark rights, however, AB InBev decided to try to get the lawsuit tossed by claiming that "Patagonia" is not actually well known and therefore should not be afforded federal trademark rights. The court took 20 pages to decide that AB InBev was wrong and that the case would move forward.

U.S. District Judge Virginia A. Phillips disagreed, writing in a 20-page order Tuesday that Patagonia has – at this stage in the proceedings – sufficiently shown its mark is both “famous and distinctive” and that promotion of its brand has factored in its $10 billion in sales since 1985.

“Assuming these allegations are true and construing the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that its Patagonia mark is “famous” for purposes of its federal trademark dilution,” Philips wrote.

The sales numbers are really all that was required to refute AB's ridiculous claim. Anecdotally, I can say that I haven't been to a ski mountain in a decade or so, and even I am fully aware of Patagonia's brand. The company has been around forever and is a common sight out west.

The court also refused to dismiss on AB's claims that it in fact had not abandoned its Patagonia trademark by not using it for half a decade and that there would be no confusion by the public that its "Patagonia"-branded beer would be confused with the clothing company.

Phillips also denied Anheuser-Busch’s request to dismiss on grounds that Patagonia failed to show that customers would associate their beer with its clothing and its brand of environmentalism. The brewer likewise failed in its argument that it had not abandoned the Cerveza Patagonia mark from Warsteiner despite not using the mark for five years.

Rob Tadlock, a member of Patagonia’s legal team, applauded Phillips’ ruling as “a well-reasoned opinion rejecting Anheuser-Busch’s effort to avoid defending Patagonia’s claims, including that Anheuser-Busch committed fraud on the Trademark Office and has deliberately tried to confuse customers into thinking that Patagonia Cerveza is produced by Patagonia, rather than Anheuser-Busch.”

Again, where is AB's strong stance on trademark in this case in which it is the one that appears to have run afoul of another's trademark rights? To the shock of this writer, it appears the company has something of a "trademark for me, but not for thee" philosophy.

Filed Under: beer, outdoor gear, patagonia, trademark
Companies: inbev, patagonia

Canadian Brewery Changes Name Of Brew Due To Peanut Butter Company Bully That Doesn't Ship In Canada

from the drunk-or-nuts? dept

We've been talking about the trademark crisis facing the craft brewing industry for some time. To recap, an industry explosion coupled with the habit of that industry to come up with creative and referential names for its products has collided with trademark attacks coming both from within and outside of the industry. The industry, which once had a quite permissive and fraternal approach to intellectual property, has since become corporatized. New entrants to the market, therefore, face challenges with how to name their craft beers without facing legal threats.

This is where it's worth repeating that trademark law is chiefly designed to keep the public from being confused as to the source of affiliations of a good or service. In other words, the brand name of a product shouldn't fool the public into thinking it came from somewhere it did not. That reality makes it quite frustrating to see Off Track Brewing agree to change the name of one of its signature brews due to threats issued by a peanut butter brand.

When the guys behind Off Track Brewing came up with a stout beer, using real peanut butter as the key ingredient, they needed a name.

"We were brainstorming one day, and Jon just said, 'You know what, Damn Skippy, it's just jumping out to me, it'd be a really good name,'" said Allan MacKay of Off Track Brewing in Bedford, N.S.

You already know what happened. Damn Skippy jumped in popularity, leading some to comment on the brew on social media. There, whatever legal team the Skippy peanut butter people had contracted with took notice and fired off a cease and desist notice to Off Track. It never got to the litigation level, as Off Track agreed to change the name of the brew. Normally, this is where our post would point out that the beer-buying public is certainly not going to confuse a creatively named peanut butter stout beer as having anything to do with Skippy brands, not to mention that the two products are in wildly different market arenas. All of which ought to have been sufficient to push back on the C&D and even for Off Track to have its day in court, if it wished.

But even if you don't agree with my assessment above, exactly how much potential confusion in the buying public could there be when that same Canadian public can't even buy Skippy peanut butter?

Even though Skippy peanut butter was discontinued in Canada two years ago -- months before the brewery opened -- the owners decided to give in after consulting their lawyer.

"We're gonna switch it up, so it's not a big loss," said MacKay. "The beer stays the same, which is good."

Part of the requirement to hold a valid trademark is that it be in use in the marketplace for commercial purposes. The Skippy people appear to very much be not using it in Canadian commerce. How, therefore, could there be any potential for customer confusion? And why, for the love of all that is peanut-buttery, did Skippy undertake this bullying to begin with?

Filed Under: beer, brewery, canada, damn skippy, peanut butter, skippy
Companies: hormel, off track brewing

EU Blocks 'Brexit Beer' Trademark, First As 'Offensive', Then As Non-Distinctive

from the any-means-possible dept

Brexit, as most of you will know, is still a full on mess. And, frankly, it's been a mess since the historic vote was taken and the British public rode a wave of nationalism draped in false promises to decide to economically scuttle their own country. In the nearly three years since, the British government has managed to put on an impressive performance piece on dysfunctional government, managing to refuse to agree on how to actually implement the will of their own people.

At the same time that all of this has been going on, some opportunistic folks have been attempting to cash in on the Brexit story by trademarking the term, without even having a plan for how to use those marks. As we've pointed out in past posts, this sort of attempt to cash in is fully annoying, but not illegal. Which makes it sort of strange to watch the EU throw everything against the wall just to see what's sticky enough to deny a UK brewer his trademark for Brexit Beer.

Upon first reviewing the application, the EU's IPO denied it on the insane grounds that the term "Brexit" is offensive.

The European Union Intellectual Property Office (Euipo) denied a trademark for a ‘Brexit’ energy beverage back in 2016 after ruling the term was too ‘offensive’ to put on a can. An official had felt ‘citizens across the EU would be deeply offended’ and it would ‘undermine the weight of an expression denoting a seminal moment in the history of the European Union.’

The two men that owned the brewery were understandably confused when told they couldn't have a trademark because a term thrown around their own country with reckless abandon was too offensive. It sure looked for all the world like the EU simply didn't want to put its stamp of approval on the term "Brexit" due to its own political distaste for it. That sure makes more sense than the odd claim that 'Brexit' is going to offend people if given trademark status.

So the brewery appealed... and was denied again. Only this time, the excuse was that the term "Brexit" was not distinctive.

This time the Grand Board ruled the word ‘Brexit’ was not ‘distinctive’ enough rather than being offensive, which it rejected. It ruled in its final judgement: ‘The term “Brexit” denotes a sovereign political decision, taken legally and has no negative moral connotations; it is not a provocation or incitement to crime or disorder.

But how does this make any more sense? As we've said, it's annoying when corporate interests attempt to cash in on pop and political culture with trademark law, but it's not against trademark law to do so. And a "Brexit Beer" certainly would be distinctive in the alcohol industry. The craft beer industry in particular has made an industry culture out of playfully referencing all sorts of things with their names and labels. I could see all kinds of creative ways for a "Brexit Beer" to be distinctive.

Again, this has the look and feel of the EU making these decisions for political reasons outside the purpose of trademark law. While we don't spend much effort around here arguing for more trademarks, it's worth pointing out when government bodies reject those trademarks improperly as well.

Filed Under: beer, brexit, eu ipo, ipo, trademark

AB/InBev, Jealous Protectors Of Trademark, Pretty Blatantly Committing Trademark Infringement

from the cheers! dept

Even if you haven't read through our previous stories about giant beer brewer AB/InBev being very much into protecting its intellectual property to the extreme, you probably would have guessed that to be the case as a matter of instinct. With a large legal war chest and an equally large legal team, the company has had no problem with gobbling up questionable trademarks and then wielding them as a weapon against even the smallest of non-competitors. With such a strict view on its own IP rights and such an expansive view on trademark law, you would think that InBev would be super into making sure it's own actions fell well within the bounds of trademark law.

You'd be wrong. Patagonia, the rather well known clothier, has sued InBev over how it's used a trademark it received in 2012 for "Patagonia". While you're sure to be wondering how there could be customer confusion, as the apparel and beer markets are quite different, the details in this case definitely matter. We can start with what InBev did in the early days of holding the trademark, which mounts to essentially: not a thing.

AB InBev was granted a trademark to sell Patagonia beer in the United States in 2012, but the company sat on the name until 2018, when it started selling beer with the branding. Patagonia says their brand was created in the 1960's and is registered in 90 countries.

So, one party has been using its trademark for decades while the other spent half a decade sitting on theirs. The rest of the details matter as well. For starters, Patagonia released its own brew, called Long Root, in 2016. InBev has also finally started using the Patagonia branding in part to tout a reputation for environmental work that InBev is now getting into. Patagonia, the company, has long been heavily involved in environmental initiatives as well. On top of that, InBev suddenly began setting up pop-up stores on ski hills and in ski villages, which is a prime marketplace for Patagonia. As part of those stores, InBev began selling Patagonia apparel, its rival company's market for its own trademark. And, keeping all of those details in mind, there is the logo InBev chose to use.

Now, are those logos super-duper similar? Absolutely not. On the other hand, given all of the details and shady actions mentioned above by InBev, it's not outlandish for Patagonia to suggest that the logos are close enough to be confusing when all other factors are taken into account.

Once again, as seems to always be the case, we find a huge proponent of intellectual property, one that has been happy to use lawyers to bully others, is likely committing trademark infringement itself. It's enough to make one wonder if there are any true champions of IP among large companies, or only cynics willing to use it when it suits themselves.

Filed Under: beer, clothing, trademark
Companies: inbev, patagonia

3 Floyds Brewing Goes After Abnormal Beer Co. All Because Of Its Trademarked Slogan 'It's Not Normal'

from the this-isn't-normal dept

It's no secret that sometimes a company's lawyers get way out ahead of how their client would want them to behave in protecting their intellectual property. We've seen many a story in which threat letters go out, only to have ownership on both sides of a dispute get together and settle things amicably. And if there's any industry in which this should absolutely happen, it should be the craft brewing industry, where there has long been a tradition of fraternity and peaceful coexistence.

And that almost seemed like it's what was going to happen when Abnormal Beer Co. got a letter from the lawyers for 3 Floyds Brewing.

Happy ending, right? Unfortunately, that Instagram post was not the end of the story. In a separate post, Abnormal has informed the public that any assurances it had been given that the lawyers would be called off were apparently not sincere. The lawyers for 3 Floyds is insisting now that Abnormal not only pull its trademark application for the beer industry, but for its winery as well.

To be frank, the fact that there is any dispute here at all is silly. 3 Floyds' opposition is flatly unnecessary, as nobody is going to somehow mix up or mistake association between Abnormal Beer Co. and a company with a slogan such as "It's not normal." The marks aren't particularly similar and, when you consider the context of the rest of the trade dress, are unlikely to cause any confusion.

On top of that, the PR game Abnormal is playing with its Instagram posts is quite strong.

We want to be clear, we are not a threat and we do not want a legal battle over something as silly as this; the only people who win are the lawyers. We’ve been at multiple festivals in different countries together and we all know there is no confusion between the 3 Floyds and Abnormal brands.

As fans of 3 Floyds Brewery, we have saved a beer for you Nick, should you decide to change your mind and reach out to work this out with us. Let’s be friends, not enemies; that’s what the spirit of craft is about, a spirit you yourself helped cultivate. There shouldn’t be anything sharing a beer can’t fix.

It's a smart appeal, which is something that fans of the craft beer industry will care about. Again, why 3 Floyds wants to continue this hit to its reputation is beyond me.

Filed Under: abnormal, beer, it's not normal, slogan, trademark
Companies: 3 floyds brewing, abnormal beer co.

Comrade Brewing Gets Its 'Superpower' Trademark After Nonsense Opposition From The Wonderful Company

from the trademarkman dept

Between the explosion in the craft beer industry and our pernicious ownership culture, the beer industry has enough of a trademark problem to regularly appear in our posts. While many of the disputes in the industry are generated by once-small breweries that have grown up and shed their permissive attitudes towards branding, just as many trademark disputes result from entities outside the industry attempting to pretend that the alcohol industries, if not craft beer specifically, are not markets all to their own. This lack of nuance occasionally pervades even within the USPTO, unfortunately.

But sometimes the TTAB gets it right. Such is the case with Comrade Brewing, makers of its 'Superpower IPA' brew, for which the TTAB refused the opposition of The Wonderful Company, which makes fruit juices. At issue was the slogan for POM Wonderful juices: "Antioxidant Superpower."

In past cases, the board has held that wine and spirits are closely related to beer in the minds of consumers, but it said The Wonderful Co. had failed to show that a soft drink such as fruit juice had the same kind of connection. “Simply put, opposer has not submitted sufficient evidence that consumers are accustomed to encountering these goods under the same mark,” Judge Peter W. Cataldo wrote for a three-judge panel.

“Particularly in light of the differences between the goods but also because the two marks had key differences in appearance,” Cataldo wrote, “the board sided with Comrade Brewing.”

This opposition was a loser on several grounds. The markets being different for each product is certainly the easiest to conceptualize. Customers looking for fruit juices are unlikely to wander into a store's craft beer section and find themselves irrevocably confused. As someone who has seen what pomegranate juice looks like, and as someone who has consumed an unholy quantity of IPAs, this opposition would be hilarious if it weren't so frustrating in the first place. For a small brewer to have to entertain this kind of clear bullying from a much larger company at the trademark office is plainly absurd.

And, when you take into account the difference in the actual marks, it becomes all the more so. A beer named "Superpower IPA" and a slogan that says "Antioxidant Superpower" are simply unlikely to cause anything resembling confusion in the market. Everything else about the trade dress is also, of course, wildly different. David Lin, owner of Comrade Brewing, appears to be taking this all in stride.

“Operating this brewery has thrown us a lot of curveballs,” explains Lin. “If I’m being completely honest the potential confusion between antioxidant juice and craft beer was more surprising to me than the day someone crashed their truck through our front door. We’re going to laugh this one off over a couple of Superpowers.”

It's certainly an endearing attitude to have, but it should be obvious that the wasting of a non-competitor's time with this sort of thing ought to be worthy of punishment.

Filed Under: antioxidant superpower, beer, fruit juice, fruit juice is not beer, pom wonderful, superpower, superpower ipa, trademark, ttab, uspto
Companies: comrade brewing, the wonderful company

Voodoo Brewery Changes Beer Name By Dipping It In Snark In Response To Pitt Trademark C&D

from the mission-accomplished? dept

Snark is a wholly underrated tool for dealing with trademark bullies. While we've seen it employed in the past, the victim of trademark bullying turning the tables on the bully with humor is something that still is far too rare. One brewery recently showed exactly how this is done.

Voodoo Brewery has been selling its H2P IPA since 2014, with a can label that nods towards the University of Pittsburgh, where the brother of the brewery's founder went to school. It was only in late 2017 that the school sent out a cease and desist letter, claiming trademark infringement.

Voodoo started selling H2P in its original can in 2014. The beer grew in popularity and was twice featured on Pitt’s campus after its release. Then, in October, Pitt called Voodoo and asked it to cease and desist distributing the “H2P” IPAs with the school’s trademarked image, font and phrase. Voodoo released the newly designed cans a few weeks ago and they sold out in a couple of days.

Voodoo’s chief executive office, Matteo Rachocki, said that he and others at Voodoo were surprised at Pitt’s cease and desist request, since the beer was on the market for three years prior.

“We had been invited on campus to pour the beer twice, so we had just kind of assumed that we had their blessing,” Rachocki said.

That obviously wouldn't hold up as any kind of a legal argument, although one wonders what exactly explains the delay in Pitt's enforcement. The beer was not only known to the school, but had been displayed on campus, I assume specifically because of the tie in with the school. That sounds like it should have been an awesome example of a school understanding that the education and alcohol sectors are not common marketplaces, and working to support an alumnus. That possibility is now gone, with the school taking the strong arm route.

Well, it doesn't appear that Voodoo will be deprived of the last laugh, even as it complies with Pitt's C&D.

Rachocki met with Pitt officials Jan. 22 to work out a deal that would allow Voodoo to use Pitt trademarks. Rachocki said the new design for the can labels was on the conference room table when Pitt officials came to meet at the brewery. He said he presented the cans to make University officials aware of the brewery’s plan for the IPA if they couldn’t secure rights to Pitt’s trademarks. After an initially encouraging meeting in January, Rachocki said Pitt stopped responding to his emails.

The new cans still feature Pitt’s trademark blue and gold color scheme, but that’s where any allusions to Pitt end. The cans now read “NON-TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT ALMA MATER IPA” with no other Pitt-related images.

The name refers both to the bullying Pitt did, as well as the fact that alumni work at Voodoo Brewery. Frankly, that's not a good look for Pitt in the public, but it's a wonderful example of how far a little snark can go in responding to trademark bullying.

Filed Under: beer, h2p, ipa, snark, trademark
Companies: pitt, voodoo brewery

Despite Its Problems, More Consumers Should Behave Like Beer Drinkers To Keep Trademark At Bay

from the pownership-culture dept

Here's a fun thing I never thought I'd find myself saying: the world should take a cue and be more like beer drinkers. Specifically, that is, when it comes to how the beer drinking community reacts to trademark law. Any review of this site's coverage of trademark law as it pertains to the alcohol and beer industries will show that there is a burgeoning problem in this industry, where explosive growth in craft brewing has resulted in a likewise explosive growth in trademark disputes. What's somewhat unique in the industry, however, is the sense of community both between brewers and drinkers and, more importantly, between brewers themselves. This bond has muted what would otherwise be disastrous intellectual property squabbles.

And part of that is indeed fueled by the consumers themselves. An example of this can be found in a New Zealand brewer's attempt to trademark a common term in the industry, only to have the public outcry force it to pull back its application.

Brewing giant Lion says it has withdrawn its trademark application for the word "dank". The company caused a stir in the craft beer world last week with the move, which it said was in relation to a product it was developing. It said the trademark application was aimed at stopping others from trying to copy its IP, not from using the term altogether.

"We recognise the application caused concern about the restrictions this would put on others, and as such we have chosen to withdraw the applications," the company said.

It's important to remind yourself that this sort of industry language-grab happens in other industries roughly all the freaking time. The permission culture mentality has so invaded the corporate world so as to cause them to seek any and all advantages, no matter how abusive they are or how counter to the purpose of trademark law they might be. In the craft brewing space, the common industry good is taken more seriously, such that attempts like Lion's, wherein the company attempted to legally lock up a word used extensively by competitors, is met with backlash from both the industry and the public. That's the kind of pressure that causes a course correction.

Craft beer fans were up in arms when Lion's trademark application was posted on the Beertown Facebook page last week.

"Dank, dankier, dankiest. Lion is attempting to trademark DANK as a beer descriptor. Anyone think that's a bit rank?", the Beertown post said.

The founder of brewery 8 Wired, Soren Eriksen, who recently launched a Superdank beer brand, said he had been sceptical. Eriksen said he was concerned that Lion might get more restrictive about the use of the term in the future if the application had been successful.

When everyone from the industry to the fans of that industry are focused more on the good of that industry than purely commercial gamesmanship, you can manage to stave off the worst effects of trademark laws.

In other world, be more like beer drinkers, world.

Filed Under: beer, dank, superdank, trademark
Companies: 8 wired, lion

Confluence Brewing Sues Confluence On 3rd, An Apartment Complex, For Trademark Infringement

from the i'd-like-to-rent-a-beer-please? dept

It's been a minute since we've had to cover some trademark nonsense in the beer industry. In fact, several recent stories have actually represented what might be mistaken for a clapback on aggressive trademark protectionism in the alcohol space. But, like all great things, it just couldn't last. The specific tomfoolery that has brought reality crashing down on us once again comes out of Iowa, where Confluence Brewing has filed a trademark suit against Confluence On 3rd, which is an apartment complex that does not serve or make beer.

Confluence Brewing Company on Friday filed a trademark lawsuit and motion for an injunction in Polk County District Court seeking to stop Confluence on 3rd apartments from using the name "Confluence."

John Martin, president and co-founder of Confluence Brewing, said representatives of the company have tried to have discussions with Roers Companies, the Long Lake, Minnesota-based developer of Confluence on 3rd and several other Des Moines-area properties, but felt that their complaints were "falling on deaf ears."

Those complaints appear to have centered around both companies using the word "confluence" and the potential public confusion that could cause. Which is really dumb. Because the brewery sells beer and the apartment complex rents apartments. A greater deviation in marketplaces I dare say could not be dreamed. And, yet, Confluence Brewing appears to have taken its opponent's refusal to negotiate on these invalid complaints as some sort of personal affront. After some back and forth about whether Confluence On 3rd might add the word "apartments" to the brand, it seems communication ceased. Jeff Koch, a principal at the parent company for Confluence On 3rd, had been a part of these conversations, but communication with him too was rebuffed.

Which isn't to say that Koch won't explain to the media just how ridiculous this all is.

The two companies have distinct names and operate in different business sectors, Koch said in his email to the Register. He said Confluence on 3rd has not experienced any confusion in the marketplace.

"Confluence on 3rd was named solely on the historic relevance the city was founded at the confluence of the Des Moines and Raccoon rivers," Koch said in his email to the Register. "It is unique to Des Moines history and should be celebrated, not solely owned and dictated by one brewing company."

This is essentially the localization of the aspect of trademark law that prevents a single company from locking up language globally. The whole point of trademark law is to prevent customer confusion within a given market, so that one brewer can't pass themselves off as another by having similar names and branding. That just isn't a concern here, given the disparity in the markets in which these two companies play. So, what got us to the point of having Confluence Brewing alleging true concern about public confusion?

Beer coasters, largely.

In April 2017, court documents show, Confluence Brewing called Roers Companies asking them to cease and desist their use of blue drink coasters promoting Confluence on 3rd at Des Moines bars.

"I just think the bar coasters just seem a little bit blatant," Kerndt said. "I mean, they were being distributed at establishments that serve my clients’ beer."

Emails between Kerndt and Koch show Confluence on 3rd had distributed all their coasters by the time of the April call and have not ordered any additional coasters since then.

Which is entirely besides the point. Just because a company puts out the tchotchke of its choice doesn't suddenly put it in a competitive situation with anyone who makes those tchotchkes. If that were the case, the tchotchke market as a whole wouldn't... you know... exist. The only other type of confusion mentioned in the article for Confluence Brewing is that apparently people's Google map skills occasionally send them to the wrong Confluence company for the wrong item. Still, that isn't the type of confusion trademark law is supposed to prevent and it's easily remedied by directing the customer to another address.

I will say that Confluence Brewing comes off as very earnest on the matter, so perhaps the folks there simply aren't aware of the intricacies of trademark law. Its legal team, on the other hand, certainly should be.

Filed Under: apartment, beer, brewing, confluence, trademark
Companies: confluence brewing, confluence on 3rd