Latest Applications to Protect Whiskey Bottle Trade Dress

[Barrel_Proof]

The latest application to protect trade dress in a whiskey bottle design in this one. The trade dress application was filed as an "Intent to Use" application by a distiller known to us all. For ready reference, call this "Design 2."

As long as the examiner assigned finds it distinctive enough to be capable of distinguishing the whiskey products coming from one whiskey source, it will be "Published for Opposition" and anyone (read, other distilling companies) can, then, oppose on one or more grounds. For example, a competitor could oppose on the basis that the design is confusingly similar to a trade dress that has become distinctive of its distilling company.

Any guesses which company filed this Intent to Use application?

[Barrel_Proof]

Here is the other bottle design for which this company has sought trade dress protection in recent weeks. It, too, was filed as an "Intent to Use" application. For ready reference, call this "Design 1."

Ain't this fun?

[Paradox]

Just a thought, but that bottle looks like a Gentleman Jack bottle to me...

[bobbyc]

design 2 looks like Old Charter and design 1 looks like Buffalo Trace, to me anyway.

[Paradox]

You're right Bobby, I do see BT and OC similarities in them. Good eye!

[Barrel_Proof]

And this is the third most recent whiskey bottle design over which trade dress protection has been sought with the USPTO.

This one, however, comes from another distilling company, though no less known to us all!!!

[TNbourbon]

Ditto Bobby. Of course, Old Charter is now a Buffalo Trace product, so we're talking about the same folks.

[TNbourbon]

That's Barton's infamous and nefarious '1792 Ridge(wood)mont 1792' -- or whatever the heck it is today.

[TNbourbon]

Seems just a little ironic, doesn't it, that after being found guilty of trademark violation with this brand, now they're seeking trademark protection for it?
I guess that's called learning from your mistakes.

[Barrel_Proof]

They are just capitalizing on the fact that the judge specifically ruled that the trade dress was NOT confusingly similar.