Brown-Forman vs. Barton

[bourbonmed]

Marvin,

They better sell enough to cover those pesky legal fees.

Omar

[bobbyc]

Many excellent thoughts here. Brown-Forman's Website legal page reads like it was written by some older fellows( or Ladies) in Pinstriped suits. Permission to copy print or use things except trademarks is given freely, with a few conditions. Certainly one doesn't see the challenging attitude that Barton has on theirs.

I regret the way it turned out, wished the best for Barton. At the same time the website lawyers or whoever wrote that piece, make it a little harder, for me at least, to have warm and fuzzy feelings for them. I can enjoy the products regardless .

[dgonano]

Dane,

That's exactly the situation. An ordinary Joe hears good things about a bourbon named Woodford Reserve. He or she goes to the store and inadvertantly picks up Ridgewood Reserve. What if that person heard bad things about Ridgewood Reserve. He or she could tell the person next to them at the liquor store to avoid Woodford as they have heard how lousy it tastes.

How would you feel if you poured hundreds of thousands of dollars in advertising to promote your product only to have the average customer buy a competitor's bourbon, thinking they had bought your whiskey.

[TNbourbon]

I (not a lawyer, but as a reporter covered many legal issues), too, was confused and puzzled by the "Distiller's Select" part of the ruling. The first thing I did was go and double-check my jug of Evan Williams' Master Distiller's Select, and wonder if I need to start hoarding it before Brown-Forman strikes again. Surely, if Barton can't use the term, neither can Heaven Hill. Or, has the EW bottling (jugging?) been around longer than Woodford Reserve? In that case, would B-F be entitled to use the term?

[bobbyc]

Is this a forward looking part of the ruling, since Barton didn't use the terms"Distiller's Select" to begin with?

[bourbonmed]

Check out this press release. Ridgemont coming by summer.

http://www.happyhours.com/pressRelease_story.htm?&itemid=303

Omar

[cowdery]

I sure would like to know how "Judge Coffman's decision ... will enable more consumers the opportunity to enjoy a truly great small-batch bourbon."

[bourbonmed]

The 'new' 1792.

http://www.courier-journal.com/business/news2004/05/12/F1-bourbon12-4137.html

Omar

[dgonano]

Omar,

Thanks for the post. Now both parties are satisfied and Barton has received a lot of publicity. I guess they should write-off their legal expenses as promotional costs.

[Bob]

I'll be looking forward to grabbing one of the new bottlings during September's Festival!

Bob

[TNbourbon]

Am really glad to see they kept the bottle. As someone (Brendaj, I think) noted elsewhere here, it's one of the most striking on the shelf. For those of you who haven't ever seen a 'live' bottle, there is no significant change here. "Ridgewood Reserve" was placed above the 1792, and now "Ridgemont Reserve" is below it; and, the rectangular batch-# label similar to Woodford's is gone from the lower portion of the product front. That's it.

[cowdery]

The new bottle.

[Paradox]

And the old bottles are already on eBay...

[angelshare]

Not being a collector of sealed bottles for the most part, how much do you think an unbroken seal increases this particular bottle's value? Obviously, the contents are not unique, but I know that sealed vs. unsealed means a lot to a lot of collectors.

$41 with four days left. Do any of you experienced collectors have a guess at the winning bid?

[TNbourbon]

I can't say I haven't been expecting this. This is a case where I think the market will set the price, because these are 'instant collectibles' and the supply is finite. I have no idea what to expect these bottles to bring. I have mixed feeling about them getting high dollars -- while I snatched up a number of them (including some for fellow SB.com'ers), I can't sell/ship them from here in Tennessee. Of course, Florida, where this bottle is being sold from, is a felony state, too.

[angelshare]

I can't sell/ship them from here in Tennessee. Of course, Florida, where this bottle is being sold from, is a felony state, too.

I am certainly no expert, nor am I a collector of sealed bottles; however, I was under the impression that the buying of collectibles (if the product in question was no longer manufactured/available through usual retailers) was considered a different type of transaction legally. For instance, I know that you sometimes see "collectible alcohol" (eg, Billy Beer) in junk/antique shops.

I'm sure differences in state law make such a transaction very complex in terms of legal implications, too.

[Paradox]

It's not so much an issue of collectible etc, it's state shipping laws that do not allow the shipment of alcohol in or out of the state. KY enforces it as do others. It's really if you and the other person are willing to do it to be honest. If you wrap and protect it good and are willing to do it, chances are it'll make it in and out of a state that does not allow it... It's just a risk.

[TNbourbon]

Ebay does indeed differentiate between 'liquor' and 'collectible container' -- that doesn't mean a zealous local prosecutor will, however.

[BSS]

Law officials don't care if it's for collecting or what. If it has liquor in it, you typically can't legally ship it over state lines without a liscenses. And some states will not allow it even if you do have a liquor liscense. The legal system is not going to take the time to differentiate between 'collectable' and 'non-collectable' bottles.

I was actually thinking that its illegal for anyone without a liquor liscense to sell alcohol to anyone....in state, out of state, or where ever. You can't exchange alcohol for something of value unless your liscensed to do so.

[dgonano]

Look, all those stupid laws were set up to protect the middleman whom the governments set up after prohibition. I' m sure it would be fine and dandy if you shipped all your out of state liquor purchases to your local distributor.

[TNbourbon]

In fact, that is exactly what, in effect, I've recently done. I am interested in being able to buy Black Maple Hill in Tennessee. So, I approached a dynamic retailer whom I knew would search it out, he's gotten it registered with the state through one of the local distributors, and it will eventually make it to his store shelf (if there's still any left) for me to buy. So, yes, in effect, I'm having my (desired) out-of-state purchase made via my local distributor/retailer.

And, yes, it is the liquor distribution lobby who howl loudest about any suggestion that shipping laws be lessened, not parents worried their 14-year-old will buy a $40 bottle of bourbon online, wait a week for shipment, and then wait on the front porch to intercept delivery.

[dgonano]

Tim,

I've still have that bottle of Dickel Reserve with your name on it. Do you really want me to send it to your distributor.

[cowdery]

THE VALUE OF THIS ITEM IS IN THE DECANTER BOTTLE ITSELF NOT ITS CONTENTS. THIS ITEM IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSUMPTION.

That's what the guy selling the 1792 on eBay included in his description. Other people selling bottles and decanters of whiskey on eBay and elsewhere include similar wording. Does that disclaimer mean anything, legally? Does it offer some kind of legal protection? Is it some kind of incantation with magic powers? In my opinion, no, no, and no. It is illegal to sell alcoholic beverages without a license, period. There is no legal distinction between "collectible" and "consumable" except in Fantasyland.

So why aren't people getting busted? The purpose of the relevant laws is to prevent underage sales, preserve the three-tier system, and preserve the privilege of individual states to regulate alcohol sales as they see fit. Occassional transactions between individual adult collectors don't really threaten those purposes so nobody is in any hurry to prosecute. Does that mean it's "okay"? No. Does that mean there won't be prosecutions in the future? No. Mark stated it very well.

[dgonano]

Chuck,

Well said. I agree with you, but you live in Illinois and I live in Maryland. You have access to whiskies that I only hope to taste and vice versa. The internet and next day shipping have made many of us oblivious to these old state laws. I don't believe underage purchases to be a problem anymore as many if not all of the e-bay sellers demand that proof of age ID be sent to them before delivery. Most out of state shippers demand that the person accepting delivery show ID.

When we go to the Bourbon Festival in September are we allowed to bring our purchases back to our home states?

I assume many of us will be breaking these antiquated laws.

[angelshare]

When we go to the Bourbon Festival in September are we allowed to bring our purchases back to our home states?

I assume many of us will be breaking these antiquated laws.

I don't know about MD, but VA ABC allows 1 gallon of distilled spirits per adult according to the website. Maybe MD has an equivalent of VA's legal limit?