Comments on: Trademarks, Rum & A Special Guest http://scofflawsden.com/blog/2009/08/13/trademarks-rum-a-special-guest/ Tue, 09 Apr 2013 00:09:05 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1 By: AK http://scofflawsden.com/blog/2009/08/13/trademarks-rum-a-special-guest/#comment-6793 AK Mon, 24 Aug 2009 19:58:22 +0000 http://scofflawsden.com/blog/?p=1241#comment-6793 The reason restrictions on drink naming are received so poorly is because the nature of the profession generally allows and encourages individual experimentation around recipes. The iconic drink names do not describe a single specific recipe, but rather a group of ingredients and a range of potential results, with individual bartenders having their preferred or personal spins on a drink. The names are, in effect, statements of lineage, rather than specific formulas, and placing a trademark on a traditional name would, as I see it, be an interference with established and traditional methods of organizing knowledge in the field. The trademarking and corporatization of a traditional name is also just an additional example of the way that copyright law is increasingly wielded against the consumer and the public. And for the love of god don't trot out that old "elect new representatives" straw man. That's not how things work, especially when you're dealing with copyright where corporations have a thousand times the influence that constituents do. --- Beyond anything else, of course is the big question: Would this trademark be at all able to stand up in court? The reason restrictions on drink naming are received so poorly is because the nature of the profession generally allows and encourages individual experimentation around recipes. The iconic drink names do not describe a single specific recipe, but rather a group of ingredients and a range of potential results, with individual bartenders having their preferred or personal spins on a drink. The names are, in effect, statements of lineage, rather than specific formulas, and placing a trademark on a traditional name would, as I see it, be an interference with established and traditional methods of organizing knowledge in the field.

The trademarking and corporatization of a traditional name is also just an additional example of the way that copyright law is increasingly wielded against the consumer and the public.

And for the love of god don’t trot out that old “elect new representatives” straw man. That’s not how things work, especially when you’re dealing with copyright where corporations have a thousand times the influence that constituents do.

—

Beyond anything else, of course is the big question: Would this trademark be at all able to stand up in court?

]]> By: DJ HawaiianShirt http://scofflawsden.com/blog/2009/08/13/trademarks-rum-a-special-guest/#comment-6623 DJ HawaiianShirt Mon, 17 Aug 2009 13:29:02 +0000 http://scofflawsden.com/blog/?p=1241#comment-6623 From above: "Changing the policy of trademark law from a consumer protection law to a property right may well prove to be damaging to new creativity and further development of new and interesting cocktails." No, this is not true. Preventing bartenders from naming their random drinks "Dark 'N Stormy" in no way prevents them from being creative in developing new drinks. Why are restrictions on drink-naming hitting folks in such a sensitive spot? Honestly, I have trouble seeing the huge stink that bartenders and bloggers have been making about the fact that Gosling's has a trademark. If you want to serve Mt Gay XO and ginger beer, call it "XO and Ginger" or "Rummy Storm" or "Cloudy 'N Grumpy" on your menu instead of a Dark 'N Stormy. I guess the management thinks they'll sell more if they call it the original name? Then use Gosling's, for your country's law's sake! If people don't like the law, then they're welcome to elect new representatives that will try to enact new laws as their constituents see fit. That's how our country works. From above:
“Changing the policy of trademark law from a consumer protection law to a property right may well prove to be damaging to new creativity and further development of new and interesting cocktails.”

No, this is not true. Preventing bartenders from naming their random drinks “Dark ‘N Stormy” in no way prevents them from being creative in developing new drinks. Why are restrictions on drink-naming hitting folks in such a sensitive spot?

Honestly, I have trouble seeing the huge stink that bartenders and bloggers have been making about the fact that Gosling’s has a trademark.

If you want to serve Mt Gay XO and ginger beer, call it “XO and Ginger” or “Rummy Storm” or “Cloudy ‘N Grumpy” on your menu instead of a Dark ‘N Stormy. I guess the management thinks they’ll sell more if they call it the original name? Then use Gosling’s, for your country’s law’s sake!

If people don’t like the law, then they’re welcome to elect new representatives that will try to enact new laws as their constituents see fit. That’s how our country works.

]]>