cowdery Posted February 14, 2004 Share Posted February 14, 2004 As you correctly note, distributors and their sales people are independent of the manufacturers. However, manufacturers typically train the distributor sales people about things like merchandising strategies for new product rollouts. From my experience, this sounds like the sort of strategy that would come from the manufacturer. They can't make the distributor do anything, but this sort of shelf positioning and pricing suggestion from the manufacturer usually is followed by the distributor. By the way, this is nothing new. Both Evan Williams and Ezra Brooks were intended to poach Jack Daniel's drinkers, and that's just one example of many in the broader spirits industry. It's a venerable tradition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boone Posted February 14, 2004 Share Posted February 14, 2004 Omar, Around here, when somebody throws a rock at ya. We gather as many rocks, and folks, as possible, to finish this feud I am on the side of Barton's, "hands down". I looked, (and compared the two myself) at the picture in the link from the Courier. No eye glasses required on that one... Maybe, they was figurin' the IQ factor in? Hey, they's real stupid (round'st here). They can't read, write and can't "see" too good either. Well Geeeze, Jim Bob, this here's bourbon is frum BF and we's gonna buy it Time will tell the verdict on this one. I "hope" that Barton's wins. Sittin' on a rock pile in Kentucky Bettye Jo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brendaj Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 Bettye Jo, I agree 100% when somebody throws a rock at ya I don't blame Barton a bit for mentioning the BF potstill . (I know they're sposed to be bottling stuff from those L&B potstills now, but... ) As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure I remember someone on this forum mentioning several months ago, that Barton should bring that up... Does BF assume the Bourbon drinker is that clueless? If a person is too drunk/stupid to tell the difference between those two bottles, they shouldn't be drinking anyway... I hope Barton's wins too. Bj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowdery Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 It's a pissing match between skunks. A pox on both their houses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brendaj Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 Chuck, Yes, you are absolutely right. And it all makes me wonder... They're both sitting back and smiling here...they're getting some serious press ... Bj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowdery Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 Have you ever on nature shows seen the way chimps fight, either individually or in groups? There's a lot of screaming, jumping up and down, fake charges, throwing dirt, and very little actual fighting. This type of law suit is a lot like that. They'll make a lot of noise and then they'll settle it on the courthouse steps. Mike Veach tells me there was a similar case between Old Charter and a brand called Charter Oak that lasted 12 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bourbonmed Posted April 6, 2004 Author Share Posted April 6, 2004 The trial has begun. Here's an update...http://www.courier-journal.com/business/news2004/04/06/B12-bourbon06-6812.htmlOmar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbutler Posted April 6, 2004 Share Posted April 6, 2004 This suit is not without precedent Omar. Some years ago, something similar happened here with Kendall Jackson vs. E.J. Gallo.wine label suitAnd pertinent info here: results Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bourbonmed Posted April 21, 2004 Author Share Posted April 21, 2004 Barton Brands wants 6 months to make changes to its Ridgewood Reserve, just in case it loses the court battle. So hang on to that pretty 1792 bottle. http://www.courier-journal.com/business/news2004/04/21/F1-coal21-4076.htmlOmar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bourbonmed Posted April 23, 2004 Author Share Posted April 23, 2004 And Brown-Forman prevails...The current 1792 bottles are now a collector's item.http://www.courier-journal.com/business/news2004/04/23/update_bourbon.htmlOmar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TNbourbon Posted April 24, 2004 Share Posted April 24, 2004 While I realize the long-term ramifications for Barton are negative, I find it amusingly ironic that Brown Forman probably prompted the sale of more Ridgewood Reserve 1792 short-term than it had sold total to date. I know I picked up three bottles this morning at a store offering it at $18.99 (were I a rich fellow, I'd have gotten a case). I think I even prompted the storeowner to consider buying a case for himself. Not only is it good bourbon (in my opinion, easily a match with recent Woodford Reserve), they've created an instant collectible bottling.I now have five bottles, and the four unopened ones will remain that way for now, at least. I think I've only ever bought two bottles of Woodford Reserve, and am not rushing back for more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowdery Posted April 26, 2004 Share Posted April 26, 2004 We were hearing that the new name will be Ridgemont Reserve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowdery Posted April 26, 2004 Share Posted April 26, 2004 This was my favorite part of the story. Among other things, Coffman sited evidence from a Barton executive who repeatedly used the name Woodford Reserve in a deposition when referring to Ridgewood Reserve 1792. It probably should have read "former Barton executive." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneCubeOnly Posted April 26, 2004 Share Posted April 26, 2004 We were hearing that the new name will be Ridgemont Reserve. Any word about whether they can continue with the same bottle shape? This has to be the prettiest piece of glass I've ever seen in a bourbon bottle! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowdery Posted April 26, 2004 Share Posted April 26, 2004 I have no specific information about this but I expect they will change only whatever is necessary to comply with the judge's order. This also assumes they won't appeal. Nothing has been said about an appeal and my guess is they won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gillman Posted April 26, 2004 Share Posted April 26, 2004 Has a link been posted to the order? I'd like to read it. If the matter was based on the likelihood of confusion by potential buyers of Woodford Reserve, with due deference to the judge who rendered the decision, I do not agree with it. I was wondering if the decision might have been based on other, or additional, grounds, e.g., copyright violation, breach of confidentiality, or something other than mere marketplace confusion. No doubt the test for confusion pertains to the casual buyer and is one of overall impression, but still..Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowdery Posted April 26, 2004 Share Posted April 26, 2004 I haven't seen a link to the decision, but I think the key words from the CJ article are: "...the company purposely violated the trademark rights of Brown-Forman Corp." (emphasis added.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowdery Posted April 26, 2004 Share Posted April 26, 2004 The Courier-Journal business writer who covered the Barton story is an old friend of mine. I emailed him and what he reported is what the judge delivered from the bench. She said the decision probably will be published tomorrow. Here is a more detailed version of the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bourbonmed Posted April 26, 2004 Author Share Posted April 26, 2004 This part is odd... The judge ordered all Ridgewood bottles OUTSIDE Kentucky off retail shelves immediately and gave Barton 60 days to remove them from stores INSIDE the state.Omar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowdery Posted April 26, 2004 Share Posted April 26, 2004 The rollout to the other states occurred after the lawsuit was filed, hence the difference. Also, as a practical matter, the judge knew the distribution outside Kentucky was minimal, so pulling the product would be easy. As a futher practical matter, the more generous allowance for distribution inside Kentucky would appear to be moot, as the stuff has been flying off the shelves ever since the decision was announced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbyc Posted April 26, 2004 Share Posted April 26, 2004 For all practical concerns , she could have ordered 6 days and the end result would be the same. Liquor Barn on Fern Valley Road was completely out by 8:30 Saturday. Maybe there's a bottle or 2 in Podunk Kentucky or some other little burg where everyone has had their heads under a rock for the last little bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pepcycle Posted April 26, 2004 Share Posted April 26, 2004 Is Podunk north or south of Monkey's Eyebrow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbyc Posted April 26, 2004 Share Posted April 26, 2004 It's the same place, Where you are is what determines the correct name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TNbourbon Posted April 26, 2004 Share Posted April 26, 2004 As of this writing (late afternoon Monday), word still hasn't been channeled through distributors to retailers in Middle Tennessee that removal's been ordered. I managed to snag a 6-bottle case of Ridgewood (at 15% off its $18.99 shelf price, to boot) a little while ago from a retailer who'd stocked a bunch to begin with (hence, the low price) and knew he wasn't going to be able to sell it if it's recalled. He still had at least a couple of cases, if I haven't talked him into setting them aside for himself. Though The Tennessean newspaper ran a story last week about the lawsuit, I haven't seen anything yet about the decision. I suspect there is no rush here yet because of that. So, product is still available -- either until the distributors take it back, or consumers become aware it's disappearing anytime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TNbourbon Posted April 26, 2004 Share Posted April 26, 2004 From the Courier-Journal story: Coffman cleared up one side issue that had occupied the opponents in the trial -- the shape of the two bottles. "The Woodford Reserve bottle is a flask," she said. "The Ridgewood Reserve bottle is a decanter." So, apparently, they can keep the bottle, presumably the contents, but not the name/marketing. Interesting to see if they will keep the bottle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts