10 ms·
The Whiskey Rebellion
- ceejayoz 14y agoWell, next time I make my bourbon BBQ sauce, I know what's going in it. This sort of responsible behaviour needs encouraging.
- stevoski 14y agoThat sort of responsible behaviour encourages responsible drinking of their product!
- carsongross 14y agoA great product coupled with decency? It's such a crazy idea... it just might work.
- excuse-me 14y agoAnd it's worth how much in free advertising and brand image? Assuming that JD is actually owned by some mega-corp fizzy beer maker (they are not "brewers"!) it's a clever way of giving the impression that they are still good ol' boys. Compare that to the Disney corps hunting down of every sick children's hospital that paints cartoon characters on it's walls.
- true_religion 14y agoJack-Daniels is owned by Brown-Forman which specializes in spirits and not beer. The least alcoholic lines they run are wine.
- excuse-me 14y agoI had assumed that were now owned by Anheuser-Busch or Diageo or some other mega-corp just because they are so good at brand image management !
- corin_ 14y agoThey're smaller than Diageo, but still a pretty big company.. almost $4b annual revenue.
- tptacek 14y agoWhen you look into it, you'll find that almost every American whiskey --- both the stuff you can get at Safeway and the enthusiast bottles --- rolls up somehow to a large corporation.
- corin_ 14y agoYeah, I'm a scotch man myself (get that "e" out of me whisky), largely because of taste but I do also like the fact that so many great scotches come from family-owned distilleries - of course, even "family-owned" can be a big company with lots of money, but it's still nice that most of them aren't huge companies. Edit: worth pointing out that there are a bunch of independent distilleries in America, which I'm led to believe by bourbon-lovers make some amazing drinks - but I don't know nearly enough about this area to give examples. It's just that the big companies outnumber and massively out-produce the small ones.
- tptacek 14y agoI'm a whiskey person (I drink a lot of rye) and I'm not intended to disparage the distilleries because of their parentage. I think a lot of them got rolled up in the 70s and 80s. Heaven Hill and Sazerac put out some pretty great stuff.
- corin_ 14y agoI don't avoid it because of, it's just a nice added bonus to the drinks I like (the likes of Talisker). Just the same as I use gmail because I think it's the best option, but it makes me happy when Google do stuff like support LGBT rights :)
- cwp 14y agoYeah. They're behaving like reasonable human beings to fool us into thinking they're reasonable human beings. But they can't fool us. Imagine the evil they could accomplish if we gave them the benefit of the doubt.
- jfb 14y agoGreat product?
- tptacek 14y agoIt's at least not bad whiskey.
- nonameisfinetoo 14y agoI'm so knowledgeable about liquors and stuff, I can't stand dilettante whiskey drinking. Beotians! those that think that the black sticker bottle contains but urine and alcohol. Go be a liquor nerd somewhere else.
- carsongross 14y agoYep. Great product.
- dkersten 14y agoThe cheap bottles of JD, IMHO, don't taste so great - but the more expensive bottles (I guess they're aged more?) are pretty good!
- esbwhat 14y agonot as nice as they were in the case of ilovejackdaniels.com: http://www.addedbytes.com/blog/what-happened-to-ilovejackdaniels-dot-com/ http://www.addedbytes.com/blog/what-happened-to-ilovejackdan...
- Anechoic 14y agoIn April of 2008, the people responsible for the Jack Daniel's trademark contacted me and asked me to stop using the name "ILoveJackDaniels", and URL "ilovejackdaniels.com", for my site, and to change the logo. They asked "Dave" to stop using the trademark and he did. Seems nice to me, unless you have evidence of strong-arm tactics that Dave didn't discuss on that page.
- esbwhat 14y agoIt's definitely not the worst, but I don't think they should have asked him at all, and (more importantly) let him redirect the old site for more than a year.
- apawloski 14y agoFrom what I understand, companies are required to defend their trademarks, lest their inaction be used to indicate tacet approval of use in court. More importantly though, they own the trademark and have the right to decide what can be explicitly linked to their brand. Even if the site wasn't making money off of it (to be honest, I'm not familiar with the one in question) the fact that it was using the JD name in a way JD didn't like warrants a C&D. So yes, they could have been nicer, but they were in the right, and I don't think their request was unreasonable.
- krogsgard 14y agoIt baffles me why more companies can't be like this. Surely some testing could provide data on success ratio of sending "friendly" c&d letters versus the normal threatening kind. I suspect people are much more likely to play nice in this kind of scenario (especially when the reason for the c&d is not as strong), but why not at least put it to the test?
- dorianj 14y agoAnd if the infringer doesn't reply to the 'friendly' request, the 'threatening' one can certainly still be sent, with the same effect as if it were sent initially.
- olalonde 14y agoThere might be misaligned incentives at play here. I'd bet that in a lot of cases lawyers have a strong inventive to settle those things in court.
- excuse-me 14y agoLawyers almost never want to go to court. They bill you for the hours preparing the case beforehand - but it's in court that they can lose.
- excuse-me 14y agoBecause their lawyers aren't this smart. Assuming it ever came to court, it comes down to who the jury likes. Compare this letter being read out as evidence to a standard Disney-style "we will wipe you and your family from the face of the Earth" (for copying a story that we copied from Christian-Anderson) - who are th jury going to feel for?
- citricsquid 14y agoI would hope to all that is holy that a jury wouldn't give 2 shits what the letter says. It should be about whether or not the person infringed on a trademark, not who has the nicest smile. It's not about lawyer's being smart, it's about most people being vindictive asshats. If someone is willing to infringe on your trademark it's most likely that they're not willing to roll over and take any polite request to stop. If you send them a letter asking politely for them to stop and they ignore the letter you then have to send another (serious) letter, which is double the lawyer time. Sure, in a few cases like this one in makes sense because it's not a clear case of infringement and it's more likely a misguided person than a vindictive person, but in more obvious cases (like someone selling "Jack Danielson's" with the same presentation style) it makes no sense to be nice.
- mekwall 14y agoI wonder if they wrote such a friendly cease-and-desist letter to Rockbaren in Gothenburg, Sweden. According to the new owner of the night club, this had already been played out between the old owner and JD. Seems not! http://www.goteborgdaily.se/news/jack-daniel-s-to-sue-gothenburg-night-club http://www.goteborgdaily.se/news/jack-daniel-s-to-sue-gothen... http://www.rockbaren.com http://www.rockbaren.com
- jontro 14y agoExactly my thought, they have been keeping going on with this for a long time now. It seems reasonable, the resemlence is really striking
- tptacek 14y agoUnsurprising. Not only are there literally hundreds of liquor bottle designs to choose from and this one chose Jack Daniels because of its obvious brand association with rock & roll, but this is a club that prominently displays other liquor brand sponsorships under an umbrella of a design derived from a competing brand.
- skibrah 14y agothats the kind of attitude you have when they serve JD in the water cooler
- excuse-me 14y agoIf they were olympic sponsors they would be demanding that he removed the letters "J" and "D" from anywhere they appear in the text of the book
- electromagnetic 14y agoI've trademarked vowels, I intend to sue J.K. Rowling, and all major authors for every AEIOU and occasional Y used. I figure it could be worth millions per novel.
- excuse-me 14y agoThe new laws introduced for the OxxxxxxxICS are ridiculous - it's now a criminal offence to use: ..any two of the following: Games, 2012, Two Thousand and Twelve Twenty Twelve Or use of any one of them alongside any mention of: gold, silver, bronze, London, medals, sponsor, sponsors http://www.shoosmiths.co.uk/news/3983.asp http://www.shoosmiths.co.uk/news/3983.asp
- ktizo 14y agoSomeone should change their name to "Olympic Games 2012 Two Thousand And Twelve Twenty Twelve Gold Silver Bronze London Medals Sponsor Sponsors Mister Smith", or "Olympic Games Sponsors Mister Smith" for short. Then set up a burger van in collaboration with the Clan MacDonald, somewhere in central London.
- eru 14y agoI couldn't find the criminal offense bit. Read more like civil law to me. Did I miss something?
- flexie 14y agoThat lawyer sets a great example to follow.
- ck2 14y agoThey are being nice because it's protected under "parody" free speech and they'd lose. I don't drink so I am not very familiar with their label but I definitely don't think of JD when I see it.
- tptacek 14y agoYou mean parody fair use. Tricky, and thus risky, and so probably not worth it. Jack Daniels has a very distinctive brand, and the publisher used it to promote a commercial product. So, for example, a risqu� parody of an L.L. Bean magazine advertisement was found not to constitute infringement. L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Drake Publishers, Inc., 811 F.2d 26, 28 (1st Cir. 1987). Similarly, the use of a pig-like character named "Spa'am" in a Muppet movie was found not to violate Hormel's rights in the trademark "Spam." Hormel Foods Corp. v. Jim Henson Prods., 73 F.3d 497 (2d Cir. 1996). On the other hand, "Gucchie Goo" diaper bags were found not to be protected under the parody defenseGucci Shops, Inc. v. R.H. Macy & Co., 446 F. Supp. 838 (S.D.N.Y. 1977). Similarly, posters bearing the logo "Enjoy Cocaine" were found to violate the rights of Coca-Cola in the slogan "Enjoy Coca-ColaCoca-Cola Co. v. Gemini Rising, Inc., 346 F. Supp. 1183 (E.D.N.Y. 1972). Thus, although the courts recognize a parody defense, the precise contours of such a defense are difficult to outline with any precision. [em mine] Your point is well taken though. It's probably not a slam dunk case.
- excuse-me 14y agoTo be a parody you have to be paroding the thing you are copying, not using it to parody a third party. The defense is intended to stop ACME company preventing you saying "Boycott ACME" by claiming ownership of the name. It doesn't allow you to copy ACME's fine range of anti-roadrunner products to protest against something else. For example Weird Al's songs are parodies but they aren't protected because he is parodying the Amish NOT Coolio.
- mikeash 14y agoWeird Al isn't parodying the artists he parodies? What?
- 14y ago
- TeMPOraL 14y agoWasn't this submission link a Boing Boing article just 15 minutes ago? What the hell is going on HN? Not only the title renaming frenzy, but now the submission links change? I'm really confused...
- sosuke 14y agoI think I'll go put my money where my mouth is in support of Jack Daniels and pour some over ice.
- TeMPOraL 14y agoGood idea; I'm going to buy one with next money I can spare.
- tptacek 14y agoWhoah whoah taking this maybe a little bit too far; before we make Jack Daniels the Louis CK of bourbon (presumptive nerd favorite in exchange for one congenial gesture), maybe you should try some Evan Williams Black Label. It costs 2-3 cups of coffee, and is way better.
- TeMPOraL 14y ago:) I'm new to those kinds of beverages. I tried JD a few times before and liked it. Thanks for the recommendation, I'll definitely check it out. Anything else worth trying out?. I do try to follow the principle of "voting with one's money" though, so I think it is only fair for me to show the appreciation for this JD move by buying a bottle.
- jsolson 14y agoFirst, Jack Daniels is not bourbon; it's Tennessee whiskey. Second, if you're going to tell people to drink Evan Williams, at least point them towards the single barrel. It lacks most of the abrasive industrial solvent characteristics of the black label, and if I recall correctly it's still typically cheaper than JD.
- tptacek 14y agoAre you saying you like Jack Daniels more than Evan Williams Black Label? I am happy to have provided the opportunity for someone to draw the distinction between "Tennessee whiskey" and "Bourbon", that written point being a regulatory requirement for all message board discussions regarding whiskey. :)
- apawloski 14y agoThere's a surprising number of cynical replies to this letter. I have two considerations in response: 1. Did the JD lawyer expect the letter to be publicly displayed when he wrote it? I think it's unreasonable to expect this. 2. Even if it is some sort of PR stunt, why is this a bad thing? Is it even possible to have a mutualistic relationship between consumers and companies any more?
- tptacek 14y agoI was thinking perhaps there's a willfulness argument to be built on an infringer refusing to alter a design even when the trademark owner offered to subsidize the alteration. Also, as pointed out cross-thread, when your argument is uncertain, it pays to be nice.
- nirvana 14y agoBesides being polite this letter provides two remedies that are unusual, and I think there might be a potential third that would make these cases much less contentious. First off, it doesn't demand a removal of the book for sale, but merely requests that the next printing have a different cover. That's a huge step forward, and since the need here is to protect the trademark ability of the brand, outrageous demands really aren't' called for. Offering to pay for the cost of changing it if they are willing to do it earlier, is also a generous remedy that protects the brand. The violator doesn't lose money, and the act of paying for the remedy is an act of protection. I wonder if there isn't a third remedy in cases like this, where it isn't flagrant violations: That being licensing the brand. Certainly trademarks are licensed all the time- coca-cola licensed clothing is a good example. So, someone using your trademark under license doesn't undermine the ability to protect the mark. Thus they could have offered to license the mark (as a third possibility) for a reasonable fee. The fee would have to be industry standard (e.g.: "You can use it for $1" would undermine their ability to protect the brand) but I imagine for mildly infringing or only partially infringing situations like this the remedy is probably not too high. Not that the publisher of this book would likely want to take them up on it, but maybe given the books content in some cases that might be preferable-- where the infringement on the brand has positive economic value for the book, and everyone makes out ok. The trademark is protected, and the publisher makes a bit more money by being able to use this design than they would if they had to do something completely different. Further, this activity- of issuing licenses- shows diligence of protecting the mark which enhances its trademark ability. You might not know all the violators of your trademark, but it is the failure to defend the mark that can cause you to lose it. A license is obviously not a failure to defend the mark, and so it helps bolster the mark. (This is what it would seem to me, but I'm not a lawyer.) Yet I've never seen someone offer to license the trademark to a violator.
- qw 14y agoYet I've never seen someone offer to license the trademark to a violator. Licensing would probably push the case into another department and out of the lawyer's hands. I wouldn't be surprised if they act out of self interest and prefers to deal with it themselves.
- 14y ago
- slackwalker 14y agoThis is pretty great marketing for the first edition.
- evolve2k 14y agoI personally applaud JD for their gentlemanly approach to sending legal letters.
- yojimbo311 14y agoI really love this approach, and I hope that my fear of the outcome of this is an irrational one. By not qualifying the offer to "just this once"/whatever I fear they may inspire more copycats and prove to the rest of the trademark gatekeepers, that being respectful and helpful just invites more infringement. I can only remember seeing Ben & Jerry's doing this with a C&D request before, but I'm sure there have been at least a couple more companies willing to forego "more effective" intimidation for the "small" chance of creating an ally. It seems to me to have more to do with an overwhelmingly strong culture in those companies to be great at what they do rather than beating everyone else at what they do. Kudos to Christy Susman and anyone else that gave her the freedom to make these choices instead of taking the "easy" way. It gives me hope.