Red and Proud of it...

[smokinjoe]

Saw this nugget in the AJC this morning. Superman don't like his cape pulled on. www.ajc.com/business/maker-136632.html

[callmeox]

Looks like they got rid of the drips after 2007 and have produced drip-free bottles since.

Hasn't their claim to red wax been shot down already?

[Jono]

From a consumer point of view I cannot see making a Maker Mark purchase identity error with this tequila.

http://images.send.com/103554_big.jpg

[IronHead]

Anyone who would mistake a tequilla bottle for a bourbon bottle probably doesn't care what they are drinking, anyway.

[ILLfarmboy]

From a consumer point of view I cannot see making a Maker Mark purchase identity error with this tequila.

http://images.send.com/103554_big.jpg

Ditto.

How can bottle trade dress violations extend across spirit types? I could sort of see it if both bottles were shaped identically, but only sort of. Who's going to grab a bottle of this tequila when what they are really shopping for is a bottle of MM?

[DeanSheen]

Don't like the Makers. Less after this. Make a better product and stop worrying about the wax.

[IronHead]

I'd like to try an expression at a higher proof...

[silverfish]

Why, why they're practically twins!

[miller542]

Forget about what's in the bottle for a minute, all that matters here is marketing.

Its about the image. We all know that bourbon marketers work hard to create a particular image for their product using just about any means necessary. In the case of Makers, they've spent millions defining their product with the red wax, so much so, that many of their images are solely the red wax, not even a bottle or label along with it. Viewed in that light, it makes sense that they would fight to protect their investment. The marketplace has become so convoluded that brands need to be able to maintain what makes them distinct.

I'm not going to say what they're doing is right or wrong, but no reasonable customer would buy one product instead of the other by mistake. Different product, different shelf, different bottle, different label, etc.

[smokinjoe]

I agree, Miller. Maker's, like any other company is protecting their brand. And, they'll use any means necessary to do so. McDonald's is another company that carries a big club looking to whack infringers on their property. Like you said Miller, I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but I don't blame them.

Ox brought up an interesting point on Maker's claim to the red wax. I believe they did get it trademarked, but it has been diluted over the years. Maybe, it's only the drips (or as I think they call them, tendrils), now? Can anyone speak as to exactly what Maker's has iron-clad legal claim to?