camden twunts still at it...

Reads 4440 • Replies 64 • Started Saturday, January 31, 2015 5:54:12 AM CT

The forums you're viewing are the static, archived version. You won't be able to post or reply here.
Our new, modern forums are here:
RateBeer Forums

Thread Frozen

Message FrumptyDumpty 18:04 Mon 2/2/2015 Thank god someone else can see it Silktork. It is driving me mad how many people are buying into the bullshit from Redwell.
Message chriso P beers 7540 º places 736 º 04:20 Tue 2/3/2015 Originally posted by FrumptyDumpty Thank god someone else can see it Silktork. It is driving me mad how many people are buying into the bullshit from Redwell. There’s often a lot of bullshit from all sides in disputes of this type. Unfortunately intellectual property law is complex, poorly understood and rapidly developing. Which is the classic recipe for a payday for the lawyers (and not a lot else) when disputes arise. Many of the issues can only be determined definitively by the courts and that’s an expensive, sometimes unaffordable, business for the parties concerned. And frequently these disputes are instigated, either directly or through influence, by agents who offer to "protect" your intellectual property (at a price). All this adds up to might generally prevailing over right, but at the cost of adverse publicity, in these disputes. I don’t know enough about the circumstances of this particular dispute to form a considered view on the rights & wrongs. And I probably wouldn’t have enough knowledge of the law to do so anyway. But, as usual with this sort of dispute, I find it all rather depressing.
Message The_Osprey beers 10591 º places 178 º 04:43 Tue 2/3/2015 It does seem like a coincidence that Redwell brewed a 4.6% lager and branded it fairly closely to the Camden Hells. It doesn’t seem that they’re totally innocent by any means. Though I don’t think they intended to be sued for the publicity. This doesn’t make sense at all. They’ve already had their publicity, and surely they’d have just changed the name by now if that was the only thing they wanted. In terms of business reality, it’s nothing new to see a product being brought as close as possible to a market leader. Supermarkets have been trying to profit from Coca Cola’s and Mars’ success for years by producing knock-off coke and Mars Bars. I think I’d be more sympathetic to Camden if they’d called their lager something innovative and worthy of protection.

Message cgarvieuk P beers 37624 º places 457 º 05:28 Tue 2/3/2015 Originally posted by The_Osprey I think I’d be more sympathetic to Camden if they’d called their lager something innovative and worthy of protection. and hadnt had previous as Threatening people over the same issue The Whole Weird Beard / Brewdog Camden thing was a Farce. Im sorry but if you name your brewery after a place, i dont believe your entitled to Sole rights to that place name. It made perfect sense for a colab with BD Camden to use Camden in the name.
Message FrumptyDumpty 05:47 Tue 2/3/2015 Craig that is just so fucking stupid. You think someone should be able to open up Brooklyn brewery this year and it not be an issue with the existing one?
Message cgarvieuk P beers 37624 º places 457 º 05:54 Tue 2/3/2015 Originally posted by FrumptyDumpty Craig that is just so fucking stupid. You think someone should be able to open up Brooklyn brewery this year and it not be an issue with the existing one? No. But you obviously think i am. If Someone else opened a Camden Brewery any where in the UK(possible even the world), id say Camden have the right to complain. Id be less keen to accept that if some other brewery in the UK wanted to call a beer name camden for some reason that was as big an issue. But i could understand them fighting that. (there a difference between brewery name and beer name) But personally i dont accept that some other Camden Business shouldnt have the ability to call a Beer name Camden as long as the Actual Brewery name is clear as well.
Message FrumptyDumpty 06:00 Tue 2/3/2015 But thats how trademarks work Craig. You apply and get rights to a name for usage in a field, such as beer, and then for usage in that field the name is yours. I also didn’t call you fucking stupid I said that opinion was stupid. Smart people can still think stupid thoughts.

Message imdownthepub P beers 26058 º places 2105 º 06:05 Tue 2/3/2015 If Camden want to keep their right to Hell, let them have it that’s what I think, and if Redwell want to join them there, fair enough. The sooner the better too, neither will really be missed.
Message cgarvieuk P beers 37624 º places 457 º 06:20 Tue 2/3/2015 Originally posted by FrumptyDumpty But thats how trademarks work Craig. You apply and get rights to a name for usage in a field, such as beer, and then for usage in that field the name is yours. I also didn’t call you fucking stupid I said that opinion was stupid. Smart people can still think stupid thoughts. It maybe how it works, but i dont agree with it when it comes to Place names. Even if it had gone to court and they won, id still think the same of them. My opinion is not based on trademark law If you want sole Exclusive use of a term. Dont pick places names, and i dont think misspelling of Beer styles is much better. if hell and helles are ok, then i bet hells is a common mistake, and thus not distinct enough as far as im concerned.
Message chriso P beers 7540 º places 736 º 06:59 Tue 2/3/2015 Originally posted by FrumptyDumpty But thats how trademarks work Craig. You apply and get rights to a name for usage in a field, such as beer, and then for usage in that field the name is yours. That is not quite correct Ryan, in UK law at least. An essential requirement of a finding of infringement is "likelihood of confusion". A number of tests are applied to assess that. And that is something that can only be determined by the Courts. Intellectual Property exists in many forms. Some can be registered, others cannot. Where there is a provision for registration there is no general legal requirement to do so. It is quite possible to claim infringement of an unregistered trademark. But registration will make bringing an action easier. At the end of the day the old tort of "passing off" is still available and has been around a hell of a lot longer than most of the codified legislation applying to intellectual property nowadays.