UK, American Breweries Show How The Craft Beer Industry Should Be Handling Trademark Issues

from the how-it's-done dept

Any brief review of the posts we've done here on the craft beer industry's recent heel-turn on all things trademark would give you the impression that there are few good guys any longer and all potential trademark disputes become disputes dialed to eleven in every case. The industry, which has exploded in last twenty years or so, initially developed a tradition for cooperation and congeniality. This was largely to do with the craft industry being heavy on very small startup breweries coupled with the tradition for creative names of brews and artistically inspired label designs. The end result was breweries that quite often swept aside what would be trademark disputes in other industries in favor of camaraderie.

That tradition has unfortunately largely disappeared over the past decade. In its place is what's become the steady corporatization of the craft beer industry, which has dragged expensive legal teams into the ranks. Those legal teams too often treat trademark concerns differently than the old guard did, opting for protectionism and aggression rather than cooperation.

But the old ways are not entirely gone, as demonstrated by UK and American brewery teams that chose instead to work with rather than against one another.

The Loose Cannon Brewery of Abingdon, UK has recently established trademark agreement with Heavy Seas Beer of Baltimore, Maryland as Heavy Seas moves towards selling their beers in the UK and Europe.

Heavy Seas’ flagship brand, Loose Cannon IPA, was potentially going to create confusion with the Loose Cannon Brewery. Happily, the Trademark ownership and use issue has now been fully resolved with Loose Cannon taking over the ownership of the UK trade mark and subsequently granting a license for use to Heavy Seas Beer in the UK. Heavy Seas has granted a mirror license to the Loose Cannon Brewery for the use of the Trademark in the EU.

It's sad how unique this sort of thing has become. Two breweries, between which there was a sensible concern about confusion over trademark rights and branding names, opted to cross-license to one another so that each entity's products could be sold in each market. In addition to demonstrating a congenial approach, it also strikes me that a move like this demonstrates the confidence each brewery has in its own products. This kind of permissive attitude towards what is ostensibly going to be some level of competition only happens when each side is confident that its own fans' love of each beer will keep any real confusion at bay.

Not satisfied with just being cool about all of this, however, the two breweries went a step further to solidify the positive relationship by collaborating on brews as well.

To mark what has been a successful outcome, the two brewers will produce a collaboration brew in 2019 at the Loose Cannon Brewery in Abingdon to introduce Heavy Seas beers to the UK market.

But this needs to be more than a mere feel-good story. It should serve as a template for other craft breweries as to how to interact and resolve potential trademark issues between peers. The craft industry is simply better for outcomes such as these.

And that should be good for everyone.

Filed Under: cooperation, craft beer, eu, licensing, loose cannon, trademark, uk, us
Companies: heavy seas beer, loose cannon brewery

This Is Why We Can't Have Fun Things: The Copyright Dispute Over Lord Buckethead's UK Political Career

from the well-that's-silly dept

You might recall during the 2017 UK elections, some attention was paid to the ongoing tradition of quirky, satirical political candidates running for office. But none got more attention than one "Lord Buckethead." There are lots of videos and photos showing Lord Buckethead on stage with Theresa May on election night, but the best summary of the whole situation came from John Oliver:

Of course, this was not, in actuality, the first time "Lord Buckethead" had run for office. There was a Lord Buckethead who ran against Margaret Thatcher in 1987. And against John Major in 1992. Those were both done by Mike Lee, who was a video distributor and indie film producer, who thought it might get him some attention for some of his movies. In 2017 comedian Jon Harvey took up the cause.

But all of it was actually based on a character from a 1984 science fiction movie called Hyperspace, which was a (pre-Space Balls) Star Wars parody that you've probably never heard of, starring Chris Elliott and Paula Poundstone. Lee released the film in the UK, retitling it "Gremloids" in an attempt to capitalize on Gremlins... a totally different movie that was two years old by that point. Hyperspace/Gremloids was originally written and directed by an American filmmaker, Todd Durham.

After the 2017 return of Lord Buckethead, Durham apparently decided to exert his copyright on the character and take all the fun away:

Online interest was enormous, with offers coming in from around the world. This ultimately ended with Harvey, who once worked with Armando Iannucci on the Time Trumpet series, making contact with Todd Durham, the film-maker behind the original Gremloids. Initially friendly conversations later broke down, with the US film director asserting his control over his previously forgotten creation.

Harvey had attracted hundreds of thousands of followers to the Twitter account and felt he had some degree of moral ownership over how the character had developed. “Todd said that the Twitter account I created wasn’t legal as it stood, and that to rectify it I needed to give him the password to the account. I didn’t know then – and still don’t know now – what my rights were and I couldn’t find an affordable way to find out, so eventually I acquiesced.”

Early this year the account began tweeting again and someone else in a newly commissioned costume began appearing at People’s Vote rallies, raising £15,000 to stand in the EU elections, only for the electoral bid to be abandoned when it was pointed out that a run would be likely to take votes away from remain-supporting parties.

From there you get lots of typical copyright-speak:

Durham – who also created the successful Hotel Transylvania franchise – said the crowdfunded money had been returned. He also asserted that no one else had “any legitimate claim nor right of control to my copyright-protected character for any reason”.

“The comedic intergalactic space lord character that I created and developed was not taken in a new direction by others in 2017,” said the director, citing the historical occasions when different individuals had stood as the character against Margaret Thatcher and John Major. “Then, in subsequent decades, I continued to develop the political direction of Lord Buckethead’s character through projects of my own.”

Yeah, sure. But the only reason Lord Buckethead has any attention now in the political climate we're in is because of what Harvey did with it. And this gets at some of the many problems with copyright today, in which ownership of "the copyright" may be wholly disconnected with what makes a work popular or interesting. This keeps happening where someone takes some mostly ignored/obsolete piece of popular culture and makes it relevant again -- only to find the copyright holder suddenly demanding money for it.

You can argue, of course, that Harvey never should have used the Buckethead character in the first place, but it's a bit laughable to argue that Harvey wasn't what drove all of the new interest in the character in the past few years. But, because copyright does not recognize this possibility, and gives so much control to the holder of the copyright -- even if they're not using it -- we end up in situations like this where we lose out on some fun because people get so obsessed with owning cultural ideas and memes.

Filed Under: copyright, gremloids, hyperspace, jon harvey, lord buckethead, mike lee, politics, todd dunham, uk

After Five-Year Legal Battle, Top Judges Rule That The UK's Spying Activities Can Be Challenged In Ordinary Courts

from the if-at-first-you-don't-succeed dept

The digital rights group Privacy International has won a major victory against UK government surveillance after a five-year legal battle. One of the many shocking revelations of Edward Snowden was that the UK security and intelligence services break into computers and mobile phones on a massive scale. Privacy International challenged this "bulk" surveillance at the UK's Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), the "judicial body which operates independently of government to provide a right of redress for anyone who believes they have been a victim of unlawful action by a public authority using covert investigative techniques". In February 2016, the IPT dismissed Privacy International's challenge, ruling that:

the UK government may use sweeping 'general warrants' to engage in computer hacking of thousands or even millions of devices, without any approval from by a judge or reasonable grounds for suspicion. The Government argued that it would be lawful in principle to use a single warrant signed off by a Minister (not a judge) to hack every mobile phone in a UK city -- and the IPT agreed with the Government.

In May 2016, Privacy International challenged the IPT's decision in the UK High Court, which agreed with the UK government's position that Tribunal decisions were not subject to judicial review. So Privacy International turned to the Court of Appeal, in February 2017. In November 2017, the Court of Appeal dismissed the move, finding in favor of the UK government once more. Undeterred, the digital rights group applied for and was granted permission to appeal to the UK's Supreme Court, which has now ruled that IPT decisions can indeed be challenged in the courts (pdf). Caroline Wilson Palow, Privacy International's General Counsel, explains why that's important:

Today's judgment is a historic victory for the rule of law. It ensures that the UK intelligence agencies are subject to oversight by the ordinary UK courts. Countries around the world are currently grappling with serious questions regarding what power should reside in each branch of government. Today's ruling is a welcome precedent for all of those countries, striking a reasonable balance between executive, legislative and judicial power.

The hope is that other countries will take note of the UK Supreme Court ruling, and follow suit by allowing judicial oversight of national surveillance activities. Privacy International intends to take advantage of the new judgment immediately to tackle the UK's bulk surveillance revealed by Snowden:

Today's ruling paves the way for Privacy International's challenge to the UK Government's use of bulk computer hacking warrants. Our challenge has been delayed for years by the Government's persistent attempt to protect the IPT's decisions from scrutiny. We are heartened that our case will now go forward.

As well as a welcome result in itself, Privacy International's ultimate victory after a string of legal defeats is a useful reminder that persistence and patience are important virtues for activists.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter, Diaspora, or Mastodon.

Filed Under: courts, ed snowden, privacy, spying, surveillance, uk
Companies: privacy international

Creator Of Silk Road 2.0 Did Double The Business, Sentenced To Only Five Years In Prison

from the that's-like-three-lifetimes-in-the-US dept

In 2015, the man behind darknet drug marketplace Silk Road, Ross Ulbricht, received two consecutive life sentences from a New York judge. Her rationale was that Ulbricht was no different than a "dangerous Bronx drug dealer." No leniency was given. The government, which participated in its own share of misconduct during the investigation, argued Ulbricht should be personally financially-responsible for every drug transaction on the Silk Road: a total of $184 million.

The government got its win -- all of it. But it was only temporary. Silk Road 2.0 swiftly took the original's place, run by another young man who knew he was going to be pursued by law enforcement across the world as soon as he fired it up. Long before it was shut down, Silk Road 2.0 was double the size of the original Silk Road, proving once again that sellers and buyers of illicit substances will find each other, no matter how many roadblocks governments erect.

The operator of this marketplace was arrested in San Francisco -- just like Albricht was. But that's where their stories drastically diverge. For one, the person arrested in San Francisco was not the founder of Silk Road 2.0. That title belonged to Dread Pirate Roberts 2 (DPR2). That person, Thomas White, was arrested by the UK's National Crime Agency.

Unlike Ulbricht's prosecution -- which played out in public thanks to our justice system's presumption of openness -- White's prosecution occurred in secret, shielded from the public eye by UK law. White was arrested in 2014, but his sentence has only now been handed down. Ulbricht got two life sentences and $184 million in fees from a US court for running the Silk Road. The creator of Silk Road 2.0 -- doing double the business of Silk Road 1.0 at its peak -- is looking to be out of prison years before his inspiration sees freedom.

[A] court in Liverpool, England, sentenced Thomas White, a technologist and privacy activist, for crimes committed in part while running Silk Road 2 under the DPR2 persona, among other crimes committed under another persona. White pleaded guilty to drug trafficking, money laundering, as well as making indecent images of children, and was sentenced to a total of 5 years and 4 months in prison.

There's your compare-and-contrast. In the US, drug crimes are the worst crimes. In the UK, crimes are crimes and the rehabilitation prisons can't provide are recognized and people are sentenced accordingly. I'm sure the DOJ is marveling at this miscarriage of justice and wondering why they bothered pitching in with an investigation that only resulted in a 5-year prison sentence.

And where Ulbricht spent his time locked up pretrial, thanks to the government getting his bail denied because of two murder-for-hire charges it later dropped, Thomas White spent his time out in the open with access to a computer. As Joseph Cox points out, White was pretty well-known in the world of security research, thanks to contributions he made while awaiting trial and sentencing.

On Twitter he mused about security and privacy topics, and has appeared under his own name in articles in Motherboard, Forbes, and more as an expert on Tor and other subjects. He previously ran a website archiving large data breaches that anyone could download, including the MySpace breach, data from hacked affairs website Ashley Madison, and customer information from a Muslim-focused dating site called ‘Muslim Match.’

Our government argues lengthy sentences for drug cases are needed to deter others from drug dealing. Seeing how quickly the new Silk Road replaced Ulbricht's version makes it clear lengthy sentences aren't deterring anything. I'm not even sure the DOJ believes its own bullshit at this point. Prison is punishment and our system is set up to provide as much punishment as possible in every case. Other places in the world recognize the limited societal value of taking decades away from people for selling products people want to buy.

Filed Under: dread pirate roberts 2, sentencing, silk road, silk road 2.0, thomas white, uk, us

UK Government Misses Another Ship Date On Its Porn Filter

from the an-Easter-miracle dept

Good news, UK porn aficionados: the porn filter is backed up.

The U.K. Government has postponed the introduction of controversial new regulations that have come to be known as the 'Porn Block' and would have blocked those under the age of 18 from viewing online porn from April.

[...]

According to the Mirror Online a Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) spokesperson has now "confirmed that the official rollout plans will be announced shortly" and the April 1 commencement date no longer stands.

And so the plan that won't work -- one that's going to under- and over-block when not being circumvented with remarkable ease -- is on the back burner again. This doesn't mean the government is going to fix it. It just means the government hasn't been able to convince anyone in the private sector that it's being foisted upon that it will work as intended.

The government "refreshed" its porn blockade late last year, softening a few mandates into suggestions. But the newly-crafted suggestions were backed by the implicit threat of heavier regulation. All the while, the government has ignored the hundreds of critics and experts who have pointed out the filtering plan's numerous problems -- not the least of which is a government-mandated collection of blackmail fodder.

The government is no longer demanding retention of site logs by sites performing age verification, but it's also not telling companies they shouldn't retain the data. Companies likely will retain this data anyway, if only to ensure they have it on hand when the government inevitably changes it mind.

As for keeping kids away from porn, the proposed system is already an admitted failure. Exemptions are in place for sites like Reddit, which has no shortage of porn to offer. Meanwhile, the government continues to insist this will all work out wonderfully whenever the long-delayed filtering system is finally rolled out.

"This is a world-leading step forward to protect our children from adult content which is currently far too easy to access online," a spokesperson for the Department for Digial, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) said. "The government, and the BBFC as the regulator, have taken the time to get this right and we will announce a commencement date shortly."

"Shortly." April 1st will come and go with no porn filter. The next best guess is around Easter (April 21st). But I'd wager that date comes and goes as well with zero new porn filters. The UK government only knows what it wants. It has no idea how to get it. If UK citizens are lucky, the porn filter will end up being government vaporware -- a minor annoyance only noticed every time a ship date is cancelled.

Filed Under: filtering, porn filter, uk

Monster Energy Loses Trademark Opposition As UK IPO Mentions That The Letter 'M' Isn't Distinctive

from the m-kay dept

Monster Energy: is there no trademark opposition they can't lose? The drink company, which might be more well known at this point for its trademark bullying than its beverages, has been handed loss after loss after loss after loss in trademark oppositions to everything from industrial paint manufacturers to the NBA and on to other beverage companies. Why the company spends so much time opposing trademarks is literally anyone's guess, but the losses all amount to the complete lack of potential confusion in the disputed trademark applications, as well as Monster Energy believing it can control words and images that it most certainly cannot.

The latest of these, in yet another opposition Monster Energy lost, has the UK's IPO explaining to Monster Energy that it cannot prevent other companies from using the letter "M" prominently in their logos.

In a decision on Wednesday, March 6, the UK IP Office ruled that Monster Energy could not stop Robert Marchington from registering a trademark, finding there was no likelihood of confusion.

In its opposition, Monster relied on its earlier registered marks (EU numbers 2439068; 3227041; 12924973 and 14226765) which depict animal or monster scratch marks that create the letter ‘M’. The mark was for a pair of legs which took the shape of the letter ‘M’ and seemed to be taking a step forward.

In its decision the IPO said Marchington’s applied-for mark and Monster’s trademarks were visually similar only to a low degree. It said that the presence of the letter ‘M’ in both parties’ marks “does not convey any particular meaning”.

The fact that Monster Energy needed to be told as much serves as a wonderful barometer for how ridiculous Monster Energy trademark oppositions generally are. Again, when it comes to trademark law, the entire point is to prevent public confusion as to the source of goods. Monster Energy's logo is indeed distinctive, as it makes the letter "M" out of claw marks. This does not somehow grant exclusivity to the letter "M" to Monster Energy, however. Legs and clawmarks, in other words, are different.

As are the markets of soft drinks and alcohol, according to the IPO.

“Whilst soft drinks and alcoholic drinks are similar in nature in that they are both liquids for consumption, consumers will consider them to be different categories of goods,” the IPO said.

Additionally, it said that “syrups and preparations”, covered by Machington’s mark, cannot be considered a finish drink product, and therefore will not be in competition with Monster’s beverages.

I continue to be baffled as to how paying all of these billable hours, or the salaries and benefits for the in-house legal team, just to handle the load of trademark oppositions that routinely end up as losses, makes any financial sense.

Filed Under: m, robert marchington, trademark, uk
Companies: monster energy

UK Suggests US Worries About Huawei Spying Are Being Overblown

from the protectionism-by-another-name dept

So, while there's really no denying that Chinese smartphone and network gearmaker Huawei engages in some clearly sketchy behavior, it's not anything that can't be matched by our own, home-grown sketchy telecom companies. And while the Trump administration has been engaged in a widespread effort to blackball Huawei gear from the American market based on allegations of spying on Americans, nobody's been able to provide a shred of public evidence that this actually occurs. At the same time, we tend to ignore the fact that the United States broke into Huawei to steal code and implant backdoors as early as 2007.

In short, this subject is more complicated that the blindly-nationalistic U.S. press coverage tends to indicate, and a not-insubstantial portion of this hand-wringing is driven by good old-fashioned protectionism.

Throughout this whole thing, Huawei executives have been right to note that in the decade-plus of these allegations and hand-wringing, you'd think some security researcher would have been able to prove that Huawei gear is spying on Americans wholesale. And last week, as news emerged that the Trump administration was finally considering a full domestic ban on using Huawei gear, our closest surveillance allies in the UK made it clear that the Huawei threat is likely being overstated by the United States:

The United Kingdom could undermine an American-led campaign to keep Chinese tech company Huawei out of super-fast 5G mobile networks around the world. The National Cyber Security Centre, part of the UK intelligence service, has concluded that there are ways to limit the risks of using Huawei to build next-generation wireless networks, according to a report by the Financial Times.

The report reiterated past concerns that while some Huwei gear may pose a security threat, it's likely because the products can sometimes be shitty, but not because they're being intentionally backdoored by the Chinese government:

If anybody knows just how Huawei works and the threat it might pose to the UK's security, it is the National Cyber Security Centre.

This arm of GCHQ has been in charge of an annual examination of the Chinese telecoms giant's equipment, and expressed concerns in its most recent report - not about secret backdoors, but sloppy cyber-security practices.

That's of course pretty common with most hardware coming out of China (especially in the internet of things space), which sort of makes the point that the Chinese don't need backdoors in Huawei gear to spy on Americans, since we're willfully putting a wide variety of shitty, half-baked IOT gear on our networks, providing industrious hackers and intelligence agencies an entire universe of attack vectors into millions of U.S. homes and businesses. Still, the solution for this is to only install gear you know to be secure, not by banning an entire company from doing business (something we aren't all that keen on when it happens to us).

If you've paid attention, U.S. gearmakers have been ginning up Huawei security fears for years, simply because they don't want to have to compete with cheaper gear. The Trump administration appears pretty happy to play along, dressing up simple protectionism as national security. And because the U.S. tech press often can't see past its own patriotism, it's coming along for the ride. Again, none of this is to say that Huawei doesn't engage in sketchy shit, just that if we're going to blackball a company for spying--providing some actual evidence of said spying is a pretty important first step.

Filed Under: china, spying, telco equipment, uk, us
Companies: huawei