Is there a trademark issue here?

[portwood]

Is there a trademark issue here?

If so, who sends the cease and desist order first, and who wins?

http://www.lockstockandbarrelspirits.com/

OR

https://www.stillwatersdistillery.com/stalkandbarrel/

[squire]

Which one was registered first?

[portwood]

Don't know.

Would the first to register have a case against the other?

[squire]

I don't see the labels as being that similar and I doubt either entity is interested in an expensive legal fight over brands that have yet to be established in the market.

Edited November 21, 2013 by squire

[smokinjoe]

I don't see the labels as being that similar and I doubt either entity is interested in an expensive legal fight over brands that have yet to be established in the market.

You're probably right, but their lawyers being lawyers, will see the billable hours dollar signs, and try to prod them into one, regardless...

[portugieser]

Trademark priority in the US is based on first use. Thus, if one company was the first to use the mark in commerce then it has priority over the other company. Based one what you've shown, assuming that these are separate companies and there is no license between them, there is a problem because consumers seeing one product will assume there's a relationship between the two upon seeing the second product (even though the bottles are different, the names are very similar and they're related products). Finally, if the first user was only using the trademark in a limited geographical area, then the filing of a trademark registration by the second company might give it national rights over the first company in other geographical areas.

[Josh]

Different looking labels, one is Stalk and one is Stock. Less similar than St. George's English Malt Whisky and St. George's American Single Malt. I'm not an attorney, but there doesn't seem to be much similarity other than homophonic names.

[smokinjoe]

...homophonic names.

Not that there's anything wrong with that...

[jburlowski]

A legal salt lick..... the lawyers are the ones that always win.

[squire]

Hooray for our side.

[Old Lamplighter]

A legal salt lick..... the lawyers are the ones that always win.

And the consumer is the ultimate loser :shithappens:

[smokinjoe]

And the consumer is the ultimate loser :shithappens:

When the lawyers smell $ in the water, unfortunately, that is usually the case...

[T Comp]

Yeah, Yeah, Yeah...it's always those lawyers...of course you can't dance unless somebody invites you to :grin:.

[TunnelTiger]

Methinks a good number of SB members might be lawyers. Shudder

[Restaurant man]

Quite sure lock stock n barrel has more money.(sold st germain to bacardi$$) Game over :pacman:

[Gillman]

I don't practice this specific area of the law but can assure those who think we're out for big bucks on things of this nature that we are not smelling anything that hasn't been cooked in the oven big time by the clients.

Companies are very careful to protect their rights, trade mark or other, and are glad when their legal counsel can make effective arguments on their behalf. We serve the various communities including the business community, which calls the shots in other words. We are no different in this regard than any other adviser or indeed internal employee in terms of trying to achieve corporate objectives, except of course being held to certain ethical and other standards as indeed applies to doctors and many other professionals.

Gary

[squire]

Good business lawyers keep their clients out of Court.

[Gillman]

Yes, except where that is not possible.

Gary

[squire]

I was stating that as a goal Gary which obviously is not always achievable.

[Gillman]

I was just drawing out the implication.

Gary

[jburlowski]

Yeah, Yeah, Yeah...it's always those lawyers...of course you can't dance unless somebody invites you to :grin:.

Sorry, Thad. Present company excepted, of course. :cool:

[Yeti]

of course you can't dance unless somebody invites you to :grin:.

My wife is a lawyer, and administrator of the state bar here. I also have many esquires in the friends and family, and I'll just say that it occasionally seems like a Sadie Hawkins ordeal to me

[Gillman]

For many years I've abided the occasional jibes about lawyers here, and most are (I feel) good-natured and don't convey any real enmity. Still, it is fair ball (at the least) to explain things from the other side. I am sure no one would disagree with that.

I've been doing this work for 35 years and most of the people in it I've met are decent head-working professionals. They try the best for their clients under what are often trying conditions, including often trying to get paid a fair dollar for what you do and the considerable knowledge behind the "simple" advice you often are asked to give. Are there bad or dishonest lawyers out there? Yes, there are some I am sure, just as there are bad or dishonest businesspeople, bad or dishonest people going through divorce, bad or dishonest people acting as executors, etc. etc. (And let's not go to the politicians, who make the laws we administer and interpret).

As servants to the business crowd, amongst other clienteles, inevitably you will get some who follow/mimic and maybe encourage the worst ways in their constituency. But most aren't like that and it is not correct IMO to suppose that lawyers will, in general, try to find a recourse simply because they can make money doing it. The impetus to bring results, at all events, comes from the client side, and we shouldn't forget that.

The law is a complex and difficult trade, much harder than it appears to those who aren't on the inside. Yet I've met numerous non-lawyers in my time who get the essence of what we do and appreciate the challenges faced - and the results won when you get them; that gives me encouragement.

Probably the profession is partly responsible for not explaining well enough what it does, but when it has its hands full trying to make the day effective for the clients and earn a decent wage at it, sometimes that side is overlooked.

Gary

Edited November 23, 2013 by Gillman

[smokinjoe]

For many years I've abided the occasional jibes about lawyers here, and most are (I feel) good-natured and don't convey any real enmity. Still, it is fair ball (at the least) to explain things from the other side. I am sure no one would disagree with that.

I've been doing this work for 35 years and most of the people in it I've met are decent head-working professionals who try the best for their clients under what are often trying conditions, including often trying to get paid a fair dollar for what you do and the considerable knowledge behind the "simple" advice you often asked to give. Are there bad or dishonest lawyers out there? Yes, there are some I am sure, just as there are bad or dishonest businesspeople, bad or dishonest people going through divorce, bad or dishonest people acting as executors, etc. etc. (And let's not go to the politicians, who make the laws we administer and interpret).

As servants to the business crowd, amongst other clienteles, inevitably you will get some who follow/mimic and maybe encourage the worst ways in their constituency. But most aren't like that and it is not correct IMO to suppose that lawyers will, in general, try to find a recourse simply because they can make money doing it. The impetus to bring results, at all events, comes from the client side, and we shouldn't forget that.

The law is a complex and difficult trade, much harder than it appears to those who aren't on the inside. (At the same time I've met many non-lawyers in my time who get the essence of what we do and appreciate the challenges faced - and the results won when you get them).

Probably the profession is partly responsible for not explaining well enough what it does, but when it has its hands full trying to make the day effective for the clients and earn a decent wage at it, sometimes that side is overlooked.

Gary

[sutton]

Well-stated Gary. I've never met nor worked with an attorney whose ethics took a backseat to a paycheck. I'm sure they are out there, but in no greater proportion to those who suffer a lack of ethics/morals regardless of profession.