The Law Offices of Brian D. Kaider, LLC
Follow us:
  • Home
  • Our Team
  • Our Services
    • Craft Beverage Law
    • Trademarks
    • Contracts & Business Transactions
    • Litigation
  • Contact
  • Blog
  • Articles

BA's "Independent Craft" Label Does Not Require New COLA Approval

6/27/2017

1 Comment

 
by Brian D. Kaider (KaiderLaw) and Gregory Parnas (DC BeverageLaw)
With the many acquisitions of craft breweries by Anheuser-Busch InBev and other large conglomerates, it is becoming increasingly difficult to determine which bottles on the shelves are truly "craft" in the sense of being small, independently owned brewers of high-quality beer.
Today, the Brewers Association announced the availability of a new seal to identify "Certified Independent Craft" beer.
Picture
The inverted bottle, symbolic of craft breweries turning the beer industry upside down, is meant to "give beer lovers an easy way to identify true small and independent craft brewers, something they have indicated is important to them."

This mark is available to use free of charge to any brewery that meets three criteria:
  1. They must hold a valid TTB Brewer's Notice
  2. They must meet the BA's definition of a "Craft Brewer"
  3. They must sign a licensing agreement
The Brewers Association claims, and we have independently verified, that use of this new seal will not require a revised Certificate of Label Approval from the TTB, so long as the seal is the only substantive change.
The Brewers Association is correctly using the "TM" symbol next to their mark and presumably will file for registration of the seal as a "collective mark," which will further enhance its ability to limit its use to only members of the BA (i.e., independent craft brewers).  As of this writing, no application appears on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office website, but applications take some time to upload into the USPTO database.
As craft beverage attorneys, we strongly encourage all independent craft brewers to license and use this free symbol to distinguish their fine products from those of "faux craft."
1 Comment

The Supreme Court Says the Trademark Office Can’t Reject “Offensive” Marks

6/19/2017

0 Comments

 
In January 2016, I wrote a blog post, called “Can you Now Register Raunchy or Offensive Trademarks? Maybe.”  At the time, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit had ruled in a case brought by Simon Shiao Tam that the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act was unconstitutional and the USPTO violated Mr. Tam’s First Amendment rights by denying the trademark application for his band, “The Slants.”

The Supreme Court accepted the appeal of the Tam case and unanimously agreed that the disparagement clause is unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.  To read the opinion, click here.  The underlying basis for its decision was that “[i]f there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” 

“[s]peech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate.’” - Supreme Court of the United States 
In reaching its decision, the Court did not address whether or not Tam intended the mark to be disparaging (he says he wants to “reclaim” the term which has been used in a disparaging manner against him and others of Asian descent).  Rather, the Court said, “[s]peech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate.’” (emphasis added)
​
This is an incredibly broad-reaching decision that will affect the outcome of many other disputes, most notably the cancellation of the trademarks for the Washington DC football team, the Redskins.

It should also unleash a logjam at the Trademark Office.  In light of the Supreme Court’s review of the Tam case, the Commissioner of Trademarks issued an informal directive to trademark examiners, indicating that applications for marks that might be considered disparaging should be suspended, pending the Supreme Court’s decision in the Tam case.  Now that the Court has ruled, those suspensions should be lifted and the applications allowed to proceed.

So, as I noted last year, the USPTO can expect a blue-streak of vulgar and off-color applications heading its way as companies vie for position in an intellectual property gold-rush.

I will caution, however, that while the Trademark Office cannot reject an application on the basis that the mark is offensive, that does not necessarily mean that you can get a product to market with that mark…yet.  The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), for example, still has rules against allowing offensive terms on alcoholic beverage labels.  In all likelihood, a challenge to that rule based on the Tam case would be successful, but would take time.  So, unless the TTB withdraws that rule in light of the Tam case (which it could), you might still not be able to put a beer into commerce with an offensive name until that rule is challenged.

Anyone with a product for which they would like to register a trademark that may be considered offensive, should contact a trademark attorney as soon as possible to discuss not only the likelihood of getting the trademark approved, but whether there are any other laws or regulations that would keep the product off the market despite trademark approval.
0 Comments

    Archives

    April 2022
    April 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    November 2019
    September 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    November 2018
    September 2018
    July 2018
    May 2018
    March 2018
    January 2018
    November 2017
    September 2017
    June 2017
    July 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    September 2015
    June 2015
    April 2015
    February 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    March 2014

    View my profile on LinkedIn

    Brian Kaider

    Experienced litigation, patent, and trademark attorney

    Categories

    All
    GTLDs
    Patents
    Trademarks

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.