White and Proud of it...

[smokinjoe]

Don't step on Superman's cape...

http://www.packagingdigest.com/artic...le&nid=6942636

I don't know how to post a picture, but you can see it at www.whiterockdistilleries.com Click on "Brands"/Rums

Moral to the story: Whether red wax or white bottles...The brand will be protected. As well it should be, IMO.

[DeanSheen]

I cant get on board with the wax.

[smokinjoe]

Robert, you don't think that Maker's should defend the "signature" of their brand? Why?

[DeanSheen]

Robert, you don't think that Maker's should defend the "signature" of their brand? Why?

No, I think going after any bottle that has "wax drips" on the outside is beyond the reasonable defenition of patent or I guess in this case brand infringement.

Commonsense things should be public use. Bottles had been dipped in wax before Makers Mark, just because they filed on it first does not mean, in my opinion, that they should be the only ones able to use "wax drippings" on the outside of their bottle.

I had been indifferent to the company based on the product, this sort of behavior has pushed me to dislike Makers Mark. IMO a mediocre overpriced brand focused more on it's brand identity than it's brand quality. I strongly dislike MM, do not purchase their products, and share this opinion with newbs in an effort to steer them away from a business model that has become all too common in the modern era, image vs. quality.

/off soapbox

[whskylvr]

The wax issue is ridiculous and so is Malibus white bottle.

Next someone is going to get it approved that my bourbon is in a clear bottle and no one else can have theirs in a clear bottle.

[smokinjoe]

The red wax tendrils are the single most identifying signature of a bottle of Maker’s Mark. It probably is the single most identifying signature of any bourbon on the market, if not any liquor in the world. They’ve spent a lot of time, effort and resources to promote it. They have been given at least some legal protection for it. Regardless of what you think about the company and the product, I think you would have to agree that if they felt it was being infringed, and did not vigorously defend it, they simply would not be doing their job.

[CorvallisCracker]

Commonsense things should be public use. Bottles had been dipped in wax before Makers Mark, just because they filed on it first does not mean, in my opinion, that they should be the only ones able to use "wax drippings" on the outside of their bottle.

I had been indifferent to the company based on the product, this sort of behavior has pushed me to dislike Makers Mark. IMO a mediocre overpriced brand focused more on it's brand identity than it's brand quality. I strongly dislike MM, do not purchase their products, and share this opinion with newbs in an effort to steer them away from a business model that has become all too common in the modern era, image vs. quality.

What he said.

Oh, wait, I said it too.

[ILLfarmboy]

I cant get on board with the wax.

MM always has that one trendel that extends down the side of the bottle. I know it is a bit of OCD on my part, but it has always bugged me, like a loose thread on my clothing or a torn label on something. I've even cut the damn thing off....

[Ultra]

No, I think going after any bottle that has "wax drips" on the outside is beyond the reasonable definition of patent or I guess in this case brand infringement.

Commonsense things should be public use. Bottles had been dipped in wax before Makers Mark, just because they filed on it first does not mean, in my opinion, that they should be the only ones able to use "wax drippings" on the outside of their bottle.

I had been indifferent to the company based on the product, this sort of behavior has pushed me to dislike Makers Mark. IMO a mediocre overpriced brand focused more on it's brand identity than it's brand quality. I strongly dislike MM, do not purchase their products, and share this opinion with newbs in an effort to steer them away from a business model that has become all too common in the modern era, image vs. quality.

/off soapbox

One cannot own the intangible.

[smokinjoe]

Check these out. They all will protect their brand.

http://www.trademarklawbriefs.com/?cat=42

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/stories/s439062.htm

http://www.matr.net/article-10625.html

I'm sure there are many, many others. If this type of corporate behavior influences your choice of drink, then you'll probably have to swear off bourbon all together.