boycott Pusser's Rum

[wadewood]

Pusser's Rum is trying to enforce that it owns the name of a tiki drink known as a Painkiller. It sued and forced changed of bar with that name. It wants all Painkillers to only be made with Pusser's rum. Can you imagine if BT/Sazerac tried to do the same with a sazerac drink?

http://www.examiner.com/spirits-in-national/pusser-s-rum-shunned-by-bartending-community-online

[ratcheer]

Did they invent the drink as part of an ad campaign or other promation and copyright or trademark it? If so, I would assume they are within their rights. Otherwise, they should back off. Just IMHO. Tim

[wadewood]

http://www.cocktailians.com/2011/06/chilling-effects-part-ii-pussers-revenge.html

http://www.cocktailians.com/2009/08/the-intellectual-property-of-booze.html

Above are a couple of articles about what they have trademarked. The drink existed long before Pusser's starting doing any trademarking of it. Actually on the Pusser's website, they tell the history of the drink: http://www.pussers.com/t-pussers-painkiller.aspx

[mrviognier]

Sounds like an effort to enforce their trademark...and one in which they hope the owners of the bar don't have the balls (and/or dollars) to fight. I suspect that if they do want a fight, any judge would laugh Pusser's lawyers out of his courtroom.

[ratcheer]

Ok, I am totally against anyone copyrighting or patenting anything that has been in general use for a long time, especially patents. I am not so clear on trademarks, though.

Did you know that someone has had a patent granted for a throwing stick as a dog toy? It is totally absurd, :hot:

Tim

[cowdery]

This type of discussion is usually littered with ignorance and this one is no exception. Abuse of intellectual property law is one of those areas where people get exercised about vague rumors and half truths spread by people who have little or no idea how intellectual property law works. Rampant intellectual property law abuse is a myth.

[ratcheer]

Sounds like you don't believe me.

http://c4sif.org/2011/01/patent-on-a-stick/

http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=hhYJAAAAEBAJ&dq=6,360,693

Tim

[wadewood]

Well we do have one SBer who is a intellectual property lawyer - maybe he will chime in.

My real issue is with Pusser's even being able to get the trademarks to begin with. They did not invent this drink or drink name so why should they be able to trademark it?

[cowdery]

Sounds like you don't believe me.

http://c4sif.org/2011/01/patent-on-a-stick/

http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=hhYJAAAAEBAJ&dq=6,360,693

Tim

I believe you have completely misrepresented what is, in fact, a manufactured toy that resembles a throwing stick, and is not in fact a stick. You have, however, provided a good illustration of how these tales of intellectual property abuse are exaggerated or outright fabricated for some dubious purpose about which I won't speculate.

[silverfish]

They did not invent this drink or drink name so why should they be able to trademark it?

DC Comics didn't invent Superman or the Superman name

yet they hold the the © & TM (current litigation pending).

The law is a ass.

[Brisko]

I believe you have completely misrepresented what is, in fact, a manufactured toy that resembles a throwing stick, and is not in fact a stick. You have, however, provided a good illustration of how these tales of intellectual property abuse are exaggerated or outright fabricated for some dubious purpose about which I won't speculate.

You nailed it, from the patent search:

An apparatus for use as a toy by an animal, for example a dog, to either fetch carry or chew includes a main section with at least one protrusion extending therefrom that resembles a branch in appearance. The toy is formed of any of a number of materials including rubber, plastic, or wood...

[cowdery]

Outrage based on ignorance is always irritating.

[cas]

Outrage based on ignorance is always irritating.

These days there's a high proportion of irritating outrage. Maybe it's always been like that.

Craig

[kickert]

You nailed it, from the patent search:

An apparatus for use as a toy by an animal, for example a dog, to either fetch carry or chew includes a main section with at least one protrusion extending therefrom that resembles a branch in appearance. The toy is formed of any of a number of materials including rubber, plastic, or wood...

I too read the whole patent, and came to the conclusion that if someone ever did try and sell a stick as a dog toy, this man could sue for patent infringement as such object would surely be "an apparatus for use as a toy by an animal to either fetch carry or chew which [would] include a main section with at least one protrusion extending therefrom that resembles a branch in appearance [and is] formed from... wood." So perhaps the outrage is justified.

[ratcheer]

... So perhaps the outrage is justified.

Thank you. Outrage is not the word I would use. I just think it is patently (no pun intended) absurd to grant a patent for a concept of something that has been in general use throughout man's history.

Tim