bourbonmed Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 Friends,We best hang on to our Ridgewood Reserve 1792 bottles -- just in case Barton is forced to change design. Cliff, Chuck: how do you legal eagles see this lawsuit ending?Mike, are there similar cases in recent history?Link below.Omar http://www.courier-journal.com/business/news2003/10/31/biz-front-bourbon31-5180.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pepcycle Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 With all the cat and dog branding that goes on, you can't figure out where half the bourbon comes from anyway. Shoot, if half the world found out that Woodford was really Old Forester, they'd stop buying all that crap about the scenic distillery in Versailles. I think Barton should counter-sue and say Woodford misrepresents itself. Now, I happen to like Old Forester and by extension, Woodford. I just hate to pay for the fancy bottle,the small distillery hype etc. Brown-Forman should just get over it. Maybe if they concentrated some effort into product instead of marketing, they wouldn't have so much trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bourbonmed Posted October 31, 2003 Author Share Posted October 31, 2003 Ed,With a giant '1792' in the center, the bottles hardly look alike. Just look at them side by side. Frankly, I like the Barton bottle better. Omar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pepcycle Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 Omar, I agree. Most people don't even know the name is Ridgewood Reserve. Everyone I've encountered refers to it as 1792. I like it better also from a flavor profile perspective as well as price point. I repeat. B-F should get over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradox Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 Just my opinion but I hope they loose that one bigtime and it gets thrown out. Pathetic that is... I never once even thought of the 2 as similiar looking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_in_Canada Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 They're both attractive bottles. Hell, that's the reason I buy L&G. Just imagine the panic if they had dipped the cork in red wax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradox Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 OMG, what a similiar resemblance! NOT Give me a break Brown-Forman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brendaj Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 Ed, Maybe if they concentrated some effort into product instead of marketing, they wouldn't have so much trouble. I agree 100%. This whole suit looks so petty. Reminds me of MM trademarking wax drips... Yepper, they should just get over it. Bj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluesbassdad Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 Yep. They should either get over it or go all out. Weren't they the first to use bottles, of any shape or design? Yours truly, Dave Morefield Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdelling Posted November 1, 2003 Share Posted November 1, 2003 I might be a lone voice, but so be it.For me it's the paper label: same size, same location.Gives the two a "family resemblance".That and the lettering in an arc above the main brand name.Glancing at the two, side-by-side, I would assume that theyare related somehow.Of course, once you read the words, you start to figure outwhat's going on, but I think there's a legitimate complaintthere.Tim Dellinger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbyc Posted November 1, 2003 Share Posted November 1, 2003 Brown Forman uses the word " Birthday" in Birthday Bourbon, I have a Birthday. Do I have a Case ? <font color="brown"> Good God Give Those Poor Guys at Barton A Break! </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradox Posted November 1, 2003 Share Posted November 1, 2003 If they win by what you mentioned there's more proof that we live in a sue crazy, disgustingly ugly society... Give me a break. That is no where enough to prove that they stole the 'thunder' out from BF... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MurphyDawg Posted November 1, 2003 Share Posted November 1, 2003 While I think the suit is just silly I would have to disagree, when I pulled these two bottles out side by side in my collection I was amazed at how similar they actually were, and I can honestly see how someone from who does not know much about the bourbon industry could presume they were from the same distillery. Actually that is the exact kind of similar bottle I expected BF to use when the inevitable "Woodford Reserve Distillery" line extensions arrive. That said I have always been rather adamant about my annoyance with marketing in relation to bourbon, and this is yet another negative example of it. I would love to just focus on what is in the bottle, but some folks in the industry just cant get past looks. Its sad, just hope that it doesnt kill a great bottling of bourbon in the process.TomC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted November 2, 2003 Share Posted November 2, 2003 Bobby, I think that's an excellent point, and by the way, I think we all have birthdays, and we all should sue BF cuz of their BS! Don't they have anything better to do than this ? I for one do not see much similiarity between the bottles. If I was looking for Woodford Reserve (which I'm not, and won't be as a result of this ), I can see the difference. If 4 people at a public tasting got it confused, that's their problem. Maybe they had too much to drink, or need to get their eyes examined! I'd also wonder how many people were at the tasting? 100? 1000? Anyway, like so many others, I'm dismayed at this news. It is ridiculous and I hope BF comes to their senses. If not, I hope Barton kicks their asses in this suit. GO BARTONS!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdelling Posted November 2, 2003 Share Posted November 2, 2003 >If I was looking for>Woodford Reserve (which I'm not, and won't be as a result of this ), I can see>the difference. If 4 people at a public tasting got it confused, that's their>problem.Just to make myself clear:If Brown-Forman is claiming that people will accidentally buy 1792 whenthey are trying to buy Woodford Reserve, then I disagree with such a claim.If, instead, Brown-Forman is claiming that people will buy 1792 thinkingthat it is a special bottling of bourbon that is made by the samepeople who produce Woodford Reserve, then I agree. I think 1792 lookslike "part of the family". 1792 looks like there is some connectionbetween it and Woodford Reserve. My first impression of 1792 is that itis somehow a higher-priced higher-end limited-release version ofWoodford Reserve. That is the confusion that I think is legitimate.Tim Dellinger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bourbonmed Posted February 6, 2004 Author Share Posted February 6, 2004 And now Barton goes after Brown-Forman for 'misleading' Woodford Reserve advertising. See full story in link below. Omar http://www.courier-journal.com/business/news2004/02/06/biz-front-woodford06-6587.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TNbourbon Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 I just hope the wind doesn't change direction too quickly, or somebody in this pissin' contest is gonna get wet! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaron Posted February 7, 2004 Share Posted February 7, 2004 I think both of them should get wet--this is all so asinine. It's funny, though, I just walked in the door about half an hour ago with a bottle of Woodford Reserve in hand. I figured after the hellish day I had at work, I deserved a little treat. Now, after reading about all this nonsense, I'm thinking I should have shelled out the extra cash for that Blanton's I was eyeing so seductively in the package store... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitzg Posted February 10, 2004 Share Posted February 10, 2004 from the article: "We've been very forthright about communicating that, and our consumers have understood it," Lynch said. (Lynch is the spokesperson for BF)In my experience, if they want the "our consumers have understood it" argument to stand up in court, they had better have some marketing research studies that show consumers are not confused about the place of origin.This is a very interesting case between BF & Barton. I'm guess it all gets settled out of court. However, the Barton claim about misleading advertising is an FTC issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowdery Posted February 10, 2004 Share Posted February 10, 2004 One perspective I would offer, as a consumer not as a lawyer, is that Woodford Reserve's success seems to be based on the quality of the product (the bourbon, but also the presentation) more so than on the consumer's intention to drink pot still whiskey made at the distillery in Woodford County. The stuff about the historic distillery and all is more background music than anything else.Also, the taste profiles of Woodford Reserve and Old Forester are different. So what's really behind the lawsuit? I have heard, and I think this may have some credibility, that Brown-Forman filed this lawsuit to make a point about the bias and ineffectiveness of the Kentucky Distillers Association (KDA), where this dispute should have been quietly resolved. It is derived from Brown-Forman's belief that the KDA and, by extension, the Kentucky Bourbon Festival, has become a clique dominated by the Bardstown-area distilleries. Ironically, because Barton probably is the smallest company in the mix, the real and ultimate adversary may be Jim Beam. Consider these facts. Brown-Forman has banked on brand names more than type. Its two most successful American whiskey products are not bourbons, Jack Daniel's and Early Times. Its marketing theory that the consumer buys brand names and not types seems supported by the success of Jack Daniel's, which is the best selling American straight whiskey in the U.S. and the world. Brown-Forman also makes two bourbons, Old Forester and Woodford Reserve, that are highly regarded. Also, Brown-Forman and Heaven Hill are the only American whiskey-making companies whose headquarters are in Kentucky. Brown-Forman is still largely controlled by the Brown family, whose roots in Kentucky and in the whiskey industry stretch back into the 19th century. No other American whiskey maker can say that at the corporate level (i.e., Jim Beam's parent has its roots in tobacco, Barton's is in wine, Buffalo Trace's parent is a liquor distributor in Louisiana and Texas, Wild Turkey's parent is French, Dickel's is English, as is Maker's, etc.)So what? I guess I'm suggesting that behind what seemingly is a fight about trademarks and advertising is a battle for the soul of the American whiskey industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bourbonmed Posted February 13, 2004 Author Share Posted February 13, 2004 And now Round # 3. ~ Cliff/Chuck, note reference to 'unclean hands' doctrine. http://www.courier-journal.com/business/news2004/02/13/biz-front-booze13-4197.html Omar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdelling Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 That's really hilarious.Unfortunately, I don't think that any of this will stopthe flow of Marketing Hooey.Tim Dellinger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluesbassdad Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 ...the flow of Marketing Hooey. I all but blush when I think of the few minutes here and there I've wasted reading the labels on bourbon before deciding to make a purchase. Even after becoming relatively educated in such matters, thanks to the folks here at StraightBourbon.com, I still can't resist reading every word when I spot an unfamiliar bottling. What's worse, I can't swear that I'm unaffected by the M.H., even when I know it's . For example, about a year ago a bottle of Benchmark beckoned from the shelf, and the next thing I knew, it was in my basket. During the ensuing months, as I struggled to finish that bottle, I kept rereading the label in an attempt to make it taste better. It didn't work. Yours truly, Dave Morefield Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pepcycle Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 I find it interesting that B-F interprets "legendary" as meaning "real". IMHO, legendary heroes and objects are ones whose existence is not nececssarily verifiable, as in Paul Bunyan and Babe the Blue Ox. Legendary, Yes. Real, Probably not. What better marketing than to refer to a non-existent or mythically magnificent still. Some people believe that cookies are made by elves in trees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TNbourbon Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 While I think this suit-countersuit thing is silly -- and realize that Barton doesn't control salesmen who work for distributors all over the country -- there is no doubt the local sales pitch is Ridgwood vs. Woodford during the current '1792' rollout in Middle Tennessee. The area distributor has priced it (15-20% lower) to compete favorably with Woodford Reserve, they suggest placing it on the shelf in proximity to Woodford Reserve -- in short, it is being pitched as being directly in competition with Woodford Reserve. So, much as I hate to say it, maybe Brown Forman has a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts