Curtis McMillan Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 http://www.economist.com/node/21543212 one step away from malt as a trademark or corn as a trademark of brown forman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bioviper Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 http://www.economist.com/node/21543212 one step away from malt as a trademark or corn as a trademark of brown forman. what do you mean. they can do that just trade mark a word. that doesnt seem posible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Morgan Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 I am so thankful that Trademarks are not internationally binding. Some wally in China has been granted a TM for Vodka, LOL. Does the US not have the same laws as Rest of World in that a word or name that has been in common public use for some time, is considered public domain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curtis McMillan Posted January 26, 2012 Author Share Posted January 26, 2012 I think the bigger picture is how much push does that group have. I.e scottish distillers guild can make waves any place, and if a group of low blow tequila distilleries can get away with this, whats next! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluestar Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Ugh, international trademark issues. Just think Budweiser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dehner Distillery Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Unbelievable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skaalvenn Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 I am so thankful that Trademarks are not internationally binding. Some wally in China has been granted a TM for Vodka, LOL. Does the US not have the same laws as Rest of World in that a word or name that has been in common public use for some time, is considered public domain? The US has laws which are clear as mud and even crystal clear laws are open to interpretation by biased judges-- especially when there is money/power/good-old-boys-club involved. Reminds me of a few years ago when Ford bought Jaguar and then went sue happy with anything related to their brand image. I think it was back in the mid or late 90s when they sued the Jaguar Club (a group who's mission was to protect the ANIMAL) just because it used the word 'jaguar'. Just a really quick article on what Ford has been able to do. http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2008/12/ford-doesnt-own-its-logo-and-neither-do-you/ Now Ford is not the only company doing this, just the first one that came to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now