Jump to content
kevinbrink

Fun with TTB COLA's Online

Recommended Posts

Jazz June
7 hours ago, kevinbrink said:

Yeah I would assume Olde St. Nick is a TM here, but maybe not? 

Allied Lomar, Inc. was the owner of the OLDE ST. NICK and VERY OLDE ST. NICK RARE trademark registrations and opposed The Old Nick Williams Company's applications to register OLD NICK and THE SPIRIT OF OLD NICK. Earlier this year the OLDE ST. NICK and and VERY OLDE ST. NICK RARE registrations were assigned to a Kentucky LLC by the name of Sur Mesure, LLC with a P.O. Box address in Bardstown.

 

The owners of the Star Trek IP are unlikely to take kindly to this. Hai Truong of St. Paul, MN applied to register WRATH OF KHANH for hot sauce and the application will publish for opposition in the near future, so I guess he will find out how they take it. There is no attorney of record for his application and I would be surprised if his interest in registering the mark persists after he is advised of the cost of fighting an opposition.

 

Maybe I should start a new thread: Fun with U.S. trademark records online

  • I like it 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kevinbrink
9 hours ago, Jazz June said:

Allied Lomar, Inc. was the owner of the OLDE ST. NICK and VERY OLDE ST. NICK RARE trademark registrations and opposed The Old Nick Williams Company's applications to register OLD NICK and THE SPIRIT OF OLD NICK. Earlier this year the OLDE ST. NICK and and VERY OLDE ST. NICK RARE registrations were assigned to a Kentucky LLC by the name of Sur Mesure, LLC with a P.O. Box address in Bardstown.

 

The owners of the Star Trek IP are unlikely to take kindly to this. Hai Truong of St. Paul, MN applied to register WRATH OF KHANH for hot sauce and the application will publish for opposition in the near future, so I guess he will find out how they take it. There is no attorney of record for his application and I would be surprised if his interest in registering the mark persists after he is advised of the cost of fighting an opposition.

 

Maybe I should start a new thread: Fun with U.S. trademark records online

Nice work!

  • I like it 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kevinbrink

SKU tweeted this first Jim Rutledge Cream of Kentucky

https://www.ttbonline.gov/colasonline/viewColaDetails.do?action=publicFormDisplay&ttbid=18325001000092

 

Jim Beam Red Sox Championship Bottle

https://www.ttbonline.gov/colasonline/viewColaDetails.do?action=publicFormDisplay&ttbid=18323001000088

 

Ridge Reserve Bourbon-Mash Whiskey, I suppose Sazerac might take issue with the name, the Bourbon Mash coupled with the "Charred Oak Barrels" makes me wonder if they are Re-Charred also 4 years old and not straight. Seem to be some issues here. 

https://www.ttbonline.gov/colasonline/viewColaDetails.do?action=publicFormDisplay&ttbid=18317001000391

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BDanner
14 hours ago, Jazz June said:

Allied Lomar, Inc. was the owner of the OLDE ST. NICK and VERY OLDE ST. NICK RARE trademark registrations and opposed The Old Nick Williams Company's applications to register OLD NICK and THE SPIRIT OF OLD NICK. Earlier this year the OLDE ST. NICK and and VERY OLDE ST. NICK RARE registrations were assigned to a Kentucky LLC by the name of Sur Mesure, LLC with a P.O. Box address in Bardstown.

 

The owners of the Star Trek IP are unlikely to take kindly to this. Hai Truong of St. Paul, MN applied to register WRATH OF KHANH for hot sauce and the application will publish for opposition in the near future, so I guess he will find out how they take it. There is no attorney of record for his application and I would be surprised if his interest in registering the mark persists after he is advised of the cost of fighting an opposition.

 

Maybe I should start a new thread: Fun with U.S. trademark records online

 

Sounds like Old Nick Williams Distillery cannot catch a break...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
smokinjoe
16 minutes ago, BDanner said:

 

Sounds like Old Nick Williams Distillery cannot catch a break...

Let’s hope they didn’t dip in red wax and keep the tendrils!   :D  

 

  • I like it 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kevinbrink
2 hours ago, BDanner said:

 

Sounds like Old Nick Williams Distillery cannot catch a break...

Sounds like they aren't doing an appropriate level of research before they pick a brand name really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BDanner
On 12/1/2018 at 5:29 PM, kevinbrink said:

Sounds like they aren't doing an appropriate level of research before they pick a brand name really.

I'd tend to agree with you, but the Nick Williams name and brand goes back pre-civil war to after prohibition. It's not a made up name, character or mascot. The distillery was re-opened on his land by his direct descendants. No made up, BS backstory about gangsters or lost recipes. No sourced whiskey posing as their own. They are actually doing it exactly the way that people claim to wish craft distilleries would do it. The ABOUT page on their website has been "marketed up", but it is all true and well documented. 

 

http://oldnickwhiskey.com/site/our-story/

Edited by BDanner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kevinbrink
32 minutes ago, BDanner said:

I'd tend to agree with you, but the Nick Williams name and brand goes back pre-civil war to after prohibition. It's not a made up name, character or mascot. The distillery was re-opened on his land by his direct descendants. No made up, BS backstory about gangsters or lost recipes. No sourced whiskey posing as their own. They are actually doing it exactly the way that people claim to wish craft distilleries would do it. The ABOUT page on their website has been "marketed up", but it is all true and well documented. 

 

http://oldnickwhiskey.com/site/our-story/

Understanding the heritage and history, at the end of the day all that really maters is if it was an active trademark. Considering what happened between what is now Stoll and Wolfe and Chatham/Michter's that is basically the precedent, and applies somehow to adjacent trademarks. 

https://www.fredminnick.com/2015/03/05/trademark-fight-michters-and-pa-distillery-trade-blows-over-bombergers/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kevinbrink

Here's a rather darkly named bourbon from Widow Jane

https://www.ttbonline.gov/colasonline/viewColaDetails.do?action=publicFormDisplay&ttbid=18331001000427

 

The 750 ML version of the Rebel Yell 100 label

https://www.ttbonline.gov/colasonline/viewColaDetails.do?action=publicFormDisplay&ttbid=18330001001096

 

King's Counted Peated Rye

https://www.ttbonline.gov/colasonline/viewColaDetails.do?action=publicFormDisplay&ttbid=18323001001044

 

Four Roses 130th Anniversary at 54.2% was approved last week

https://www.ttbonline.gov/colasonline/viewColaDetails.do?action=publicFormDisplay&ttbid=18303001000763

Previous submission from March was at 55% i don't see any other change and considering that it's already on the shelf at 54.2% seems weird since I beleive proof can be changed without a label filing. 

https://www.ttbonline.gov/colasonline/viewColaDetails.do?action=publicFormDisplay&ttbid=18074001000486

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kevinbrink
CUfan99
5 hours ago, kevinbrink said:

Only 12 bottles of the 12 year MGP. I’m interested to see what the price will be. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BDanner
17 hours ago, kevinbrink said:

Orphan Barrel Scotch. Hmmmmm. That is either going to be out of this world or pure dreck. There is no way there's middle ground.

 

Edited by BDanner
  • I like it 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kevinbrink
11 hours ago, Swamp55 said:

I came across an interesting article by Sku in the K & L Spirits Journal that details proposed new TTB labeling regulaitons:

 

TTB Proposes New Regulations Modernizing Alcohol Labeling

My 2 cents is that most of these are good steps forward, but even though I don't tend to enjoy or purchase whiskey aged in small casks the ~50 gallon barrel rule is not one I'm a fan of. For one it makes it harder for craft outfits to get product on the shelves which would stifle existing businesses and stop economic growth which is largely beneficial to the communities the Craft outfits are in. Hard to imagine this wasn't a revision pushed for by one or some of the big guys to limit competition. I also don't think limiting what are already pretty narrow guidelines for Bourbon/Whiskey in the us is good for the consumer as it inhibits innovation, for instance in hotter southern climates the use of larger barrels may actually be beneficial for flavor profile long term. The other weird takeaway, and I don't remember if SKU commented on this one, is that Bottled in Bond would become a class available to imported whiskeys, this just seems odd. While I know that the bonding of warehouses in the sense it was originally intended doesn't apply in quite the same way, the historical relevance of the term would kind of lose it's value. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Richnimrod
14 hours ago, Swamp55 said:

I came across an interesting article by Sku in the K & L Spirits Journal that details proposed new TTB labeling regulaitons:

 

TTB Proposes New Regulations Modernizing Alcohol Labeling

The synopsis provided here (Apparently by SKU: Thanx!) sounds like mostly common sense stuff, and mostly would be beneficial for consumers.

Therefor it's unlikely to become the standard without the morons who approve final verbiage for the regs mucking at least some of it up.

Making stuff murky and/or unclear is a true science, and these fellows are proven masters at not only doing so; but, also at imaginative interpretation and enforcement strategies, right?

Soooooo, we'll wait and see.    I assume we'll all have a chance to complain about (or hail) the changes, ....if they ever happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kevinbrink

11.5 year old Barton bottled for Bluegrass Hospitality, interesting that the ate is the same as Rutledge's Bourbon

https://www.ttbonline.gov/colasonline/viewColaDetails.do?action=publicFormDisplay&ttbid=18339001000360

 

Corner Creek 10 Year old (I believe brand ownership went from KBD/Willett to Castle/Jefferson?)

https://www.ttbonline.gov/colasonline/viewColaDetails.do?action=publicFormDisplay&ttbid=18341001000060

 

Old Elk Cask Strength 

https://www.ttbonline.gov/colasonline/viewColaDetails.do?action=publicFormDisplay&ttbid=18325001000486

Edited by kevinbrink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mbroo5880i
19 minutes ago, kevinbrink said:

11.5 year old Barton bottled for Bluegrass Hospitality, interesting that the ate is the same as Rutledge's Bourbon

https://www.ttbonline.gov/colasonline/viewColaDetails.do?action=publicFormDisplay&ttbid=18339001000360

 

Corner Creek 10 Year old (I believe brand ownership went from KBD/Willett to Castle/Jefferson?)

https://www.ttbonline.gov/colasonline/viewColaDetails.do?action=publicFormDisplay&ttbid=18341001000060

 

Old Elk Cask Strength 

https://www.ttbonline.gov/colasonline/viewColaDetails.do?action=publicFormDisplay&ttbid=18325001000486

Apparently,  Corner Creek really is unique bourbon. It is 84 proof on one side of the bottle and 88 proof on the other.

 

You would think people would proof read the proposed labels before they submit them.  Even 5th graders proof read their homework.  I guess these people aren't smarter than 5th graders.

  • I like it 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kevinbrink
4 minutes ago, mbroo5880i said:

Apparently,  Corner Creek really is unique bourbon. It is 84 proof on one side of the bottle and 88 proof on the other.

 

You would think people would proof read the proposed labels before they submit them.  Even 5th graders proof read their homework.  I guess these people aren't smarter than 5th graders.

Probably the exact same text as the current NAS bottle, the eagle eyes over at the TTB clearly missed that one as well (as did I) since status is approved!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lcpfratn
well now we know how Jane became a widow - her husband drank this stuff.

Now that’s funny! I agree with you in regards to Widow Jane. I haven’t tried one yet that I liked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jazz June
On 12/14/2018 at 9:04 AM, kevinbrink said:

11.5 year old Barton bottled for Bluegrass Hospitality, interesting that the ate is the same as Rutledge's Bourbon

https://www.ttbonline.gov/colasonline/viewColaDetails.do?action=publicFormDisplay&ttbid=18339001000360

 

Corner Creek 10 Year old (I believe brand ownership went from KBD/Willett to Castle/Jefferson?)

https://www.ttbonline.gov/colasonline/viewColaDetails.do?action=publicFormDisplay&ttbid=18341001000060

 

Old Elk Cask Strength 

https://www.ttbonline.gov/colasonline/viewColaDetails.do?action=publicFormDisplay&ttbid=18325001000486

The CORNER CREEK trademark registration issued thirty years ago last month to Sternlite Corporation. In 2006 it was assigned to Corner Creek Distillery Co., a Florida corporation with a Miami address (the same one Sternlite had). Castle Brands Inc., which owns JEFFERSON'S, is also a Florida corporation, but based on a cursory review of the differences in other aspects of the records, it doesn't look like they have common ownership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JoeTerp
On 12/14/2018 at 9:22 AM, wadewood said:

well now we know how Jane became a widow - her husband drank this stuff.

What does Coffin Varnish even mean.  I thought the label would have a little more detail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...