CUfan99 Posted June 21, 2018 Share Posted June 21, 2018 30 minutes ago, FacePlant said: I concur with this profound oratory. I don't like the 600lbs gorilla stomping all the monkeys in the cage, but if in the early process of bring back Col. Taylors dormant distillery the new owners continued to call it "Old Taylor" I think that forces Saz to shut down that reference. Just my little ole opinion from a non-attorney. Is it not the old Taylor distillery? Must the new owners create a code name for it or never discuss its history? Old Taylor distillery is an accurate description of a location. JMO 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinbrink Posted June 21, 2018 Share Posted June 21, 2018 2 hours ago, FacePlant said: I concur with this profound oratory. I don't like the 600lbs gorilla stomping all the monkeys in the cage, but if in the early process of bring back Col. Taylors dormant distillery the new owners continued to call it "Old Taylor" I think that forces Saz to shut down that reference. Just my little ole opinion from a non-attorney. From what I read the references to the Old Taylor Distillery were used to describe the location of events taking place, I don't know if you have been there or seen pictures of the place but on the "Castle" it says in big letters Old Taylor Distillery, leaving that out in this instance is likely to cause confusion. I understand a brand trying to protect it's mark but from what I read this was pretty senseless litigation and the decision seems to state the same. Full disclosure is that I am also typically on the Sazerac is shady side of the fence. Maybe someone else recalls or can google it but was a similar lawsuit or some agreement in place when Diageo/Bulliet started referring to their tour as the Bulliet Experience at Stitzel-Weller, seems to be a more egregious offense than what was done at C&K. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FacePlant Posted June 21, 2018 Share Posted June 21, 2018 I guess looking at all the facts Sazerac should have included both signs on the old distillery in the purchase contract? Then they could have removed them before all the hoopla began. I do understand that the reference C&K used was geographic, and they never had an intent of selling whiskey under that label, but Saz was right (in my opinion) to protect their purchase of the name. I don't think in the end there were any winners or losers in this battle...whoops...except for the attorneys. C&K could have suffered more financial damage since they had extra costs in establishing a new business and Sazerac probably supports a large legal staff whether or not there's a fight to be had? Does anyone know if Saz approached Peristyle in good faith to solve this situation without the courts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flahute Posted June 21, 2018 Author Share Posted June 21, 2018 1 hour ago, FacePlant said: I guess looking at all the facts Sazerac should have included both signs on the old distillery in the purchase contract? Then they could have removed them before all the hoopla began. I do understand that the reference C&K used was geographic, and they never had an intent of selling whiskey under that label, but Saz was right (in my opinion) to protect their purchase of the name. I don't think in the end there were any winners or losers in this battle...whoops...except for the attorneys. C&K could have suffered more financial damage since they had extra costs in establishing a new business and Sazerac probably supports a large legal staff whether or not there's a fight to be had? Does anyone know if Saz approached Peristyle in good faith to solve this situation without the courts? I don't believe they did. In addition to wanting C&K to take down all the old signs, they wanted to bar anyone at C&K from even referencing the history of the place down to not even saying the Colonel's name. In essence, they wanted to erase that history. Sazerac had a big legal team on this and used every trick at their disposal to try to bleed C&K into submission. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinbrink Posted June 21, 2018 Share Posted June 21, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, FacePlant said: I guess looking at all the facts Sazerac should have included both signs on the old distillery in the purchase contract? Then they could have removed them before all the hoopla began. I do understand that the reference C&K used was geographic, and they never had an intent of selling whiskey under that label, but Saz was right (in my opinion) to protect their purchase of the name. I don't think in the end there were any winners or losers in this battle...whoops...except for the attorneys. C&K could have suffered more financial damage since they had extra costs in establishing a new business and Sazerac probably supports a large legal staff whether or not there's a fight to be had? Does anyone know if Saz approached Peristyle in good faith to solve this situation without the courts? Well Sazerac never owned the distillery it went from National Distillers to Beam to a group of "investors" from Atlanta in 2005 to Peristyle in 2014. In 2009 Sazerac only bought the Taylor Brand from Beam along with barrel inventory, Beam no longer owned the distillery at the time. Edited June 21, 2018 by kevinbrink clearing up ambiguity in dates 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paddy Posted June 22, 2018 Share Posted June 22, 2018 (edited) ^^^^To add; it'd be hard to for Sazarac to justify removing the signs at the distillery, particularly the one that is etched in stone on the side of the building (since 1887)! Edited June 22, 2018 by Paddy 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts