wadewood Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ratcheer Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wadewood Posted June 12, 2011 Author Share Posted June 12, 2011 http://www.cocktailians.com/2011/06/chilling-effects-part-ii-pussers-revenge.htmlhttp://www.cocktailians.com/2009/08/the-intellectual-property-of-booze.htmlAbove 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrviognier Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ratcheer Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowdery Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ratcheer Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 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=6,360,693Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wadewood Posted June 14, 2011 Author Share Posted June 14, 2011 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowdery Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 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=6,360,693TimI 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silverfish Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 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 nameyet they hold the the © & TM (current litigation pending).The law is a ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brisko Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowdery Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 Outrage based on ignorance is always irritating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cas Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kickert Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ratcheer Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 ... 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts