Ralph at Tuthilltown

It would be possible, I think, to modify a building or to build a structure with doors serving as walls which would be rolled back so that the building works would be visible and it would have the "feel" of being outside, as long as the works are actually indoors. For the visitor, if this is your goal, it is "perception" that counts more than the full on reality.

Easy on Chuck, he's an attorney and can't help himself. But he's right, there is no ban on "home distilling" per se, it is a ban on unlicensed distillation. The "home" in typical zoning codes is usually inclusive of the entire property; but for the purposes of the regulations it is not a "home" which is restricted, but a "residence". So if you want to make whiskey at home, you can apply and adjust an out building and have your garage serve as the DSP and BONDED WAREHOUSE. And I have to repeat, in agreement with Chuck, you can distill as a hobby, with a license; so the complainers are not bitching about being prohibited from making their own spirits. They are bitching because they must do some paperwork and become a register their works. The "hobbyists" have the luxury of avoiding the law. But as has been pointed out already, it's the braggarts who are problematic. Efforts to put spirits on the same level as home brewers and home wine makers is a waste of time, which time you could use to get your license so you could actually have something to brag about and the right to do so. But please, enough already about "home distilling". If you are a hobbyist and making hootch in the basement keep your mouth shut except to taste. "Legalizing" so called home-distillation, by definition, means the government is going to stick its nose in your business. It is legal, it just requires permits. R

Be interesting to add to your survey, for response only by holders of DSP licenses: "Do you support and/or encourage home distillers operating without regulatory oversight or license?" And see what responses come in.

For those who object to the application for a Trademark on the phrase "ARTISAN DISTILLING WORKSHOP", here is your method of protest direct from the USPTO: OPPOSING AN APPLICATION: Before the USPTO registers a trademark, the USPTO publishes the trademark in the Official Gazette. The Official Gazette is a weekly publication that identifies the trademarks that the USPTO has approved for registration. Any party who believes he or she will be damaged by the registration of the trademark can file an opposition to the registration. If you wish to file an opposition, you should monitor the status of the application by checking the Trademark Application and Registration Retrieval (TARR) database to determine the date the trademark will be published in the Official Gazette, at http://tarr.uspto.gov/ . Once the USPTO publishes the trademark in the Official Gazette, you have 30 days to either (1) file an opposition to the trademark with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB); or (2) request an extension of time to file an opposition. FEES: You must pay a fee of $300 for each class of goods or services that you oppose when filing a notice of opposition. An opposition submitted without the required fee will not be accepted. HOW TO FILE AN OPPOSITION: The TTAB requests that all TTAB submissions be made online using the TTAB electronic system ESTTA at http://estta.uspto.gov/ . ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: If you need more information on filing a notice of opposition, you can contact the TTAB Assistance Center at 571-272-8500 or toll-free at 1-800-786-9199, and you can refer to the online information at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/ttab/ . LETTER OF PROTEST: A letter of protest is a way for someone to bring to the attention of the USPTO evidence about why an application should be refused registration. The letter of protest procedure applies to pending applications, not registrations. You can file a letter of protest if you are claiming that a pending application is likely to cause confusion with your registered trademark or a trademark in your prior pending application (one that was filed before the application that you wish to challenge) or if there is some other reason you believe the trademark should not be registered. You cannot file a letter of protest solely based on the fact that you believe you were the first to use a trademark. Letters of protest should be filed before the application about which you are concerned is approved for publication. FORMS: You can fax your letters of protest to 571-273-0032 or you can file your letter of protest online through the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) at http://www.uspto.gov/teas/e-TEAS/index.html . You should click on the overall Petitions Forms category from the TEAS front page and then select form number 8 ( Letter of Protest ). Enter the serial number of the application you wish to protest and click on the heading Petitions or similar matters. From the displayed pull-down menu, select the Letter of Protest option and then click the Next button. You should monitor the Trademark Application and Registration Retrieval (TARR) database to determine the status of the application at http://tarr.uspto.gov/ . ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: More information about letters of protest is available in Section 1715 of the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP) at http://tess2.uspto.gov/tmdb/tmep/1700.htm#_T1715 . If you have any further questions or if you require additional information, please contact the Trademark Assistance Center at 571-272-9250 and press "0". You can reference the following Service Request number: 1-168781896. *****end of uspto info**** Here is the link to the actual file of the application, you will need to provide the "serial number" listed on this page to file your letter of protest: http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4009:ffcais.2.1 I suggest all those Artisan/Craft/Micro Distillers who oppose the application that is the topic of this discussion file your protest per the above instructions. We're not going to spend $300 to file a formal complaint, but will file a letter of protest on the USPTO website as the instructions spell out, no cost there. You'll have the opportunity to comment why you protest the award of the USPTO protection. Simply, the phrase is overbroad and a typically used industry phrase which if awarded USPTO protection would unfairly limit the rest of the micro distilling industry from making use of a commonly used, generic phrase.

Impossible to secure an outdoor location, that's the logic. Not sure I agree, but it's their position. Any secured structure that will "protect the revenue" and hold a certificate of occupancy can be a DSP. The only thing that separates the "home distiller" from a licensed operation is the willingness on the part of the distiller to be a legal entity, and those who do not want to be bothered with adhering to any regulatory oversight. If you want to pursue an illegal operation with all the risks involved (remember it's the Tax people will come after you), be my guest. But if you want to be able to openly experiment and join the community, get the license. As I said, no minimums are specified so a true small home operation (not in the "home" but set apart in a garage or secure "shed" you can.) "Home distilling" is not illegal, you just can't set up shop in a residence or the other listed prohibited sites. R

The effort is being undertaken now among some of the leading micro distillers to move ADI from a private venture to a member managed industry association. It will cost some money. Some of us have already agreed to put up some of the starting funding; others should consider a contribution as well. DISCUS is what it is, and the "Council" is their baby. I wish them luck. We will join the Council as well. We all need to work with DISCUS and get the most of their resources. But I stand upon my belief, the micro distillers of the US need an independent Industry Association that will represent our needs first if even at the risk of internecine clashes with our Big Alcohol cousins. R

It is clear from the thread so far, Prof. Berglund's filing is not well received. We have taken the step of filing a protest and opposition with the USPTO over their website, declaring the phrase he has chosen is too broad and overreaching and would be like trademarking "Fine Car Mechanic Workshop" or some such. The "cease and desist" coming as an email or posting on this website does not constitute a legal action. Until there is a legitimate trademark and an action is declared and filed the notice is meaningless. I'm certain we can identify half dozen other folks who have used the declared phrase so it has not been in exclusive use. Prof. Berglund should withdraw his filing and reapply with a more specific phrase like "Kris Berglund's Artisan Distilling Workshop", to Delaware Phoenix' suggestion, thereby lending his own credential to the phrase and making it clear. R

With all due respect to professor Berglund, I believe that "Artisan Distilling Workshop" is to general a descriptive phrase to trademark. It would be like trademarking "Auto Repair Workshop". If this Trademark comes up for review by the PTO, it should be opposed. If it were UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN ARTISAN DISTILLING WORKSHOP that would be another matter, specific to the University and totally acceptable. But the phrase is altogether too generic as it stands. Ralph Erenzo Tuthilltown

I repeat. If you want to do something constructive, get the law changed. If not, quit bitching and apply for a license like everyone else. I don't know why anyone here would say that "home distillation" is illegal. It is not. Get the permit and it is not illegal. Put it in your garage. Put it in a little shed out back, so to meet the prohibition against having it in a residence. But it is NOT illegal, it's just hard to get the permit. Not impossible. There is no prohibition against a person starting a distillery on his property or in any rented space or borrowed space that is not a residence. An individual citizen can file the application and get the necessary permits and do it. If you want the Government to actually Permit "home distillation", you invite their scrutiny and intrusion through the permitting process one way or another. The character of the dialog turns confrontational when people start to attack one another instead of focusing on the goal. The goal is to be able to make alcohol at home for personal consumption. So do it. Get the permit and do it and be grownup about it. File the papers, pay the Federal taxes (no State taxes if you don't sell it at least not in NY). If you don't want to get a permit, then accept that it is illegal till SOMEONE changes the law. It's as simple as that.

I've never seen this recommendation or requirement. Fact is that alcohol mixes readily with water so any typical spill can be diluted. It seems to me impractical to have to have a containment around all tanks holding spirits, given we are mainly using tanks under 500 gallons and mostly 55 gal ss tanks. A forklift might pierce one 55 g tank, which is not a great deal of spilled material and could easily be hosed down. And what about all the oak barrels, should the barrel storage building have a containment structure built around it? Just thinking that it is impractical on the day to day functional side. A response, were I to compose it, would be the statistics on major alcohol spills in distilleries across the US from fork lift damage or other damage. If it isn't a problem, they should not be suggesting the containment; since if they "recommend" it and you do not do it, they are likely to use that as a reason to raise the risk level and therefor your rates.

Because it's ALCOHOL. It isn't soup. It isn't a hot stovetop or soap on the bathtub floor or any other potentially dangerous household item. It's ALCOHOL, an addictive substance. One can argue comparisons with anything, but the fact remains, it is a dangerous readily available consumable and it's production and quality control, to the extent possible, must be regulated. Perhaps there are some other distillers out there who feel as I do, these would be the Professionals. And there are renegades out there too, who may or may not intend to sell their goods. It seems to me if one calls for something to be "legalized" this implies regulation by nature. And regulation means the Government steps in. If the home distiller is true to the nature I would anticipate, that "no government" "I can do what I want" attitude, why seek the sanction of the Government by even raising the issue of permission at all? To call for the legalization guarantees government interference in your sacred undertaking. Your argument is contradictory. As for any claim I am ill informed, I will leave that to the other readers of this forum to decide. But I'll say this. If I were a home distiller I sure wouldn't be posting on this forum, inviting the Fed to come knocking on my door. I'd be keeping my little hobby a secret and enjoying my illicit hootch and lifting a glass to anarchy and whiskey. I wonder every time I go to a whiskey program and there are half a dozen guys there yucking it up and bragging on their goods, "Oh yeah, just got some right here in my pocket, have a snort. Made it myself." One never knows who is standing next to you, like a TTB investigator (you can't recognize them, they look just like you and me). IT'S ILLEGAL. Rather than waste your time writing here, write your Congressman and do something productive with your arguments, change the law. In the meanwhile you're a criminal so for godsakes keep your head down and your mouth shut unless you are eager to get pinched. R

Depending upon your local laws it may or may not be possible. Local zoning applies. State laws apply. But in NY, if you have a definable "premises" with proper security, and it's a legal structure in conformance with local zoning and building code, it can be licensed as a Distilled Spirits Plant. But as always, read your laws.

Everything there is includes "protecting the revenue" for you, for me, for the Government. That does not mean that it is the only motivation and in this case I must respectfully disagree with Marc. Home brewers and winemakers are working with 12-24% maximum abv, impossible to ignite, whereas a distiller is working with flammables. If a brewer or winemaker screws up, the consumer is not ingesting 40-50% alcohols; that plural is intentional. So-called "home distillers" have been known to produce goods high in undesirable, often toxic materials included, and sometimes in toxic concentrations. As Colin points out, methanol is toxic; and the TTB is charged with ensuring that levels of some toxic materials do not exceed set safe limits. Who does that for the home distiller who impresses his buddies with his cool homemade hootch, slips them a bottle to take home? There is no assurance that a home distiller will abide the law, not sell his product and ensure it is safe to drink. I take that back. There is a way. The aspiring home distiller can go on line, download the packet from the TTB that includes all the BASIC PERMIT paperwork, go through the process and acquire a BASIC PERMIT, there's no charge for the permit and the bond is based on how much you make. Then apply for a State permit to distill spirits. There is no qualifying minimum size for a distillery that I am aware. Some of our most creative distillers are operating in the smallest of spaces with five and ten gallon stills until they get to the point they want to produce for the real world. So that's my suggestion. Go through the process like the rest of the honest distillers. Get a permit. Buy a 3 gallon still from New Zealand online, file the required regular reporting paperwork, acquire a bond, pay the Federal Excise Tax on the goods you keep and report the goods you destroy as you do your R&D. Build a separate garage, or rent a shed or some secure structure to meet the requirement and "protect the revenue". Be a grown up. Be legal. Then go forth and create something no one has ever tasted before. I was in the climbing business before I made whiskey. It was real business, with a real tax number and lots of insurance. I taught climbing, built climbing gyms, rigged modest stunts off impressive structures all around Manhattan, took climbers to Europe for climbing excursions, managed and produced climbing events for National television, served on the Board of Directors of the American Alpine Club; 30 years climbing but I never was a "Guide". When I had need of a Guide for my clients, I hired the local professionals. I was asked often by clients to Guide them, for substantial amounts of money. But I never did it. And I admonished every one of the many young talented climbers I knew who guided without a Guide permit or insurance. "When you are a Guide, you are responsible for your client in every way not just on a rope; including if your client is injured for whatever reason while in your care, that is, you must make sure they will be cared for if they are injured. No one who does risky things can ever guarantee safety. No matter how safe you are, no matter how careful you are there is always the unknowable, the unforeseen. The only qualified way you assure your client of your Professionalism is to get your Guide license, get insurance and BE a Professional." I would not an unlicensed "doctor" perform surgery on my son or wife, or me. Given a choice I trust a Licensed Professional first. Not for nothing do we have a Universal Building Code that assures buildings are built correctly and to an agreed standard. Even though there are many talented builders out there we rely on the Code and the Code Enforcement Officials to make sure our houses don't fall down on us because some unqualified person didn't follow the Code. The same thing applies here. If a person intends to make a volatile, arguably poisonous substance in a process that produces a waste stream including some toxic byproducts, that person has a responsibility to the public as much as to his family and his buddies (with their special bottles) to take EVERY precaution. The only assurance, to the extent anyone can ultimately enforce any law or "assure" anyone of anything at all (thank you Werner Heisenberg), is the Law and the process of getting a BASIC PERMIT and a State license and keeping it. The daunting character of the applications process has a weeding-out effect. A person who would eschew the reporting process is more likely to be sloppy or careless in other ways that might have disastrous effect. Apart from that, every other responsible distiller in the Country did it. We pay our taxes. We all went through the permit process from the biggest to the smallest (not just at the start but now and every day) and it is possible. It's time consuming but it just ain't rocket science, plain and simple. It is not as costly as you think, especially if you are making very small amounts and not selling the goods you produce. Want to be a distiller? Get a permit. Pay the taxes. File the paperwork. Join the Community of distillers. And make something special.

Taking a bath is not illegal. Making alcohol at home is. And I don't recall mentioning that injuries in the home are the reason for the Government ban on home distillation. There is only one country I'm aware that permits home distillation, Australia. But the real point is that the TTB has two mandates: protect the revenue and protect the consumer. Nothing in there about protecting the distiller. And while I disagree with the prohibitions against locating a distillery on a vessel or attached to a residence, I am still in support of the prohibition against home distillation until some mechanism is put in place to ensure the viability of the juice. There may not be any record of injuries related to home distillation, explosions and the like; there is ample proof many consumers have been made ill by bad spirits made at unlicensed facilities. R

One question that came up during the recent MARKETING seminar at the ADI CONFERENCE in Louisville, KY last week: "I'm a new distiller here in Kentucky and I'm surrounded by bourbon makers. How do I compete in a place so packed with bourbon distillers?" My response: "Make something else." This discussion, while interesting as an academic exercise is wasting your time, time that would be better spent coming up with something NEW within the framework of the existing definitions, which as Chuck points out do not prevent anyone from making any particular thing; only what you call it. The biggest part of our job as micro distillers at this early stage of the industry's reemergence is to re-educate the consumer that there is more to good aged spirits or unaged spirits than what has been on the shelves for the past 80 years or so. If you make something good and interesting and new, and get folks to try it, they'll buy it. If you try to compete with the big alcohol brands on their territory you are up against a Goliath with your little sling and stone. As my partner says, "You want to make another Coca-Cola? You want to compete with Coke and Pepsi? Why?" You're trying to think outside the wrong box. Burn the box. There is no box. Build your own box, your way. Stop spending time on semantics as Delaware Phoenix suggests. Get back to work and come up with something, anything new and good and interesting. R

Based on the comments in this section and the fact that we're all going to be in one place next week, might be a good time to consider this draft of the definition of what we are. It is the result of considerable dialog and has been modified quite a bit to get to this stage. The goal was to be specific but retain latitude for the producers; to attempt to find a tipping point where a producer must admit they are no longer a little guy; and allowing for all the different expressions of the artisan spirits movement, regardless if the producer is actually distilling or not. The definition has avoided the terms "artisan" and "craft" as the result of the unresolvable differences of opinion on the nature of the two. MICRO SPIRIT PRODUCER: Micro Spirit Producers make alcoholic beverage spirits using a variety of techniques and agricultural raw materials including but not limited to herbs, grains and fruit, which substantially change the character of the raw materials; up to 65,000 proof gallons of product per year produced in a single licensed DISTILLED SPIRITS PLANT premises. These techniques include, but are not limited to: infusion, distillation, blending, or other legal permitted means. * NOTE: 65,000 pg equates to about 30,000 Nine (9) liter cases (12 - 750ml bottles each, at 40% abv.) See you all in Louisville.

I can't find an actual definition in the CFR. The following is the definition for RECTIFICATION from DICTIONARY.COM: rec·ti·fy (rěk'tə-fī') tr.v. rec·ti·fied, rec·ti·fy·ing, rec·ti·fies To set right; correct. To correct by calculation or adjustment. See Synonyms at correct. Chemistry To refine or purify, especially by distillation. Electronics To convert (alternating current) into direct current. To adjust (the proof of alcoholic beverages) by adding water or other liquids. In NEW YORK STATE LAW, a "Rectifier" is defined: 24. "Rectifier" means and includes any person who rectifies, purifies or refines distilled spirits or wines by any process other than as provided for on distillery premises and every person who, without rectifying, purifying or refining distilled spirits, shall, by mixing such spirits, wine or other liquor with water or any materials, manufactures any imitation of or compounds liquors for sale under the name of whiskey, brandy, gin, rum, wine, spirits, cordials, bitters or any other name. It appears, if you do anything to any alcohol to modify it, you're "rectifying". R

Unlikely home distilling will become a legal activity. As noted above the TTB role includes protecting the consumer. Inspection of all home distilleries and their goods to ensure they are safe and potable is a physical impossibility. This is not like making wine or beer at home. These are highly volatile spirits, and improperly handled present the very real possibility of danger to the public, both because of the highly flammable nature of the spirits, and due to the dangers of the lack of any third party quality control ensuring potability. Our good friend at Delaware Phoenix said it best. Go through the process, get the license, demonstrate capability and concern, pay your taxes and then explore every possible way to make something new and different. It is a cop-out (dating myself with that phrase I know) to hide behind the excuse that it is some government plot to keep you from being free to do as you please and make what you want without license. All the 250 or so CRAFT distillers in the US did it, including some with facilities that are probably as small as any home distiller would build in their garage. It is not impossible. It is difficult but there is purpose in that, it sorts out those serious enough to be entrusted with making a consumer product that is produced safely and is safe to consumer; AND pay their taxes. Ralph

Do you have more information on the bill being introduced? Bill number, Originator? Ralph

Bye Sensei, good luck in Japan. (It was always my understanding Sensei means Teacher. This is not an honorable example to set.) Mudpuppy, don't let the naysayers and those who retreat from the challenge get you down. It is a typical rant among those who do not DO, that it is the government's fault, or the law, or the neighbors, or George W. Bush. The truth is in the doing. It's easy to complain, blame and leave. And you know what, it only clears the playing field of the duffers and leaves the rest more room to grow and prosper. Good luck.

We have some experience with this kind of thing. First rule, read the local zoning manual front to back. If you're in an Agricultural area you must contact your state Ag office and see what rights you have as a farm, 60 acres would certainly qualify and if you grow rye or other grains then use them to make your product there you are in some States (like NY) considered a Farm Operation. Some States do not consider Farm Operations which produce goods to be "manufacturing", but rather "agricultural use." But mainly if you are married to the land you have then you must perhaps take a more direct approach and let the lawyers and engineers respond to the issues the neighbors raise. Go through the process. The law can not be applied based on what people fear "might happen". The local and State laws will have regulations regarding the expansion of businesses. The numbers quoted above are so highly unlikely unless you're opening a major facility that they should not even come up. And I don't know about your State law, but in NY if you're operating a business allowed by zoning, it is a use by right and it must be accommodated within the law. Speak with a Zoning and Land Use specialist. Speak with your State Dept of Agriculture. Remind everyone about the taxes you'll generate and the jobs you'll create. If it doesn't matter to them and they continue to scream about it, turn to the law. You should not have to reveal how you intend to grow. Or what type of heat element you're using unless it's in the fire code. Do things according to code. The above advice, ask forgiveness not permission is a rule of thumb we learned around here the hard way. Now we consult our attorney, check the local zoning and State law and proceed under the best interpretation we can find, making sure to document everything and prove we did everything correctly. You may be able to get a variance. But it is a long slog. You can fight City Hall and noisy neighbors. But better to avoid the issue entirely. If you can find another place more suitable and won't take a loss, assuming you have not yet started to build out, my advice: reconsider your site. Zoning is a bear.

Why would anyone want to put whiskey into anything but an oak barrel? BECAUSE THEY CAN. Because they're curious if they can do things another way and make a good product. I hope all the other distillers in the world share the sentiment: "Why vary from the old tried and true methods we've used for hundreds of years." That leaves a wide world of new and interesting whiskey making available for the taking by the adventurous, the innovators, the new distillers. The law gives broad latitude. Experiment!

There is discussion on the DISCUS MICRO DISTILLING ADVISORY COUNCIL going on right now among many of the leaders in the micro distilling movement. It seems Fritz Maytag, after selling his brewery and distillery, has been appointed the Chair of this Council, appointed by whom I cannot say. I have to wonder also who selected the members of the Council. Not that I'm vying for a seat amongst them. More that I'm trying to figure out how DISCUS received a mandate to name a Council to represent the micro distillers (the majority of whom cannot afford the price of admission) and most of the distillers found out about it after the fact. This Council is a body of DISCUS. It is a good thing for DISCUS members who want to keep their finger on the pulse of whiskey making in America. It may have some benefit to the country's micro distillers, but make no mistake it is not THE representative body of the micro distillers. Perhaps it is DISCUS' attempt to impose some structure on what up till now has been an unorganized association. The intent may be positive, but the execution is inappropriate. At the annual convocation of micro distillers next week we will bump into some of the Cousins from big alcohol. DISCUS is sponsoring a shindig with Brown and Forman. The movement is now officially on the radar of the large alcohol companies (not all of them "producers"). It will be an opportunity for ADI members to decide if they want to determine their own future and sit at the Adult's table or mind our p's and q's and sit at a table set by the Adults, eating a meal decided for us. It seems the discussions this week raise the lingering issue of ADI organization. Those discussions include appreciation for the work Bill Owen and his crew have done getting us all together, a difficult time consuming and usually thankless job. I for one applaud their work. This is about the maturing of an industry. In order for ADI to be THE voice of micro distilling in the US and ultimately worldwide, it must reorganize, elect a Board of Member Directors and set an agenda. No harm in remaining a nice friendly social club. But if we don't set the agenda for ourselves it will be set for us by people we did not choose. See you all next week.