Painkiller, Pusser's Rum and a Tiki Bar - General Tiki

J jokeiii Tiki Socialite Miami, FL Joined: Sep 18, 2010 Posts: 503	J jokeiii Posted posted on Thu, Jun 16, 2011 6:46 AM On 2011-06-15 21:31, swizzle wrote: From my understanding, any drink made using a rum other than Goslings must be called a Dark AND Stormy. Goslings have the trademark for a Dark 'N' Stormy. My IP attorney says "no," alas. Any variation of "'N" ("and,""&," etc.) would still not be sufficient. On 2011-06-16 00:56, cheekytiki wrote: No, they are only protecting thier name in the areas they have trademarked it, so you can happily call almost anything else "Painkiller" as long as it is not within the drinks industry. Like everything, there are two sides to every story. Pussers did the right thing in trying to protect thier copyright, but, could have done it in a less heavy handed way, hell, they could have played the whole thing to their advantage. PKNY stood up to keepiing thier name but could have been a little more understanding and played the whole thing to their advantage. Trademarks are expensive to buy, and if you do not enforce them it makes them harder to protect. Two things: Pusser's TMed the name for a restaurant/bar/etc. AFTER the PKNY opened its doors. (They should have have TMed the name for use with a bar/restaurant first.) Also I read -- this may very well be wrong -- that Pusser's TMed the drink name as "Pusser's Painkiller" and not as a plain ol' "Painkiller." Finally, I really don't care about how much, legally, in the right Pusser's is. It doesn't matter to me they didn't break the law; what matters to me is that, from what I can see, they abused the legal loopholes that allowed them to trademark a drink they didn't invent, ten years after it was invented, and invented with rums not theirs. I think that had it gone to trial, Pusser's may well have lost. But I am 99.99999999% certain PKNY simply didn't have the dollars to take this to trial. In my professional life I have seen so many instances of a larger company placing a smaller company in the "You can't afford to fight us, even if you're right" position. Does Pusser's have a right to pursue all legal remedies to protect their trademark? Yes. Do I have the legal right to refrain from ever purchasing anything of Pusser's ever again, and strenuously seeking to convince as many other people to do likewise? Mm-hmm. So, no Pusser's for me from here on out.

On 2011-06-15 21:31, swizzle wrote:
From my understanding, any drink made using a rum other than Goslings must be called a Dark AND Stormy. Goslings have the trademark for a Dark 'N' Stormy.

My IP attorney says "no," alas. Any variation of "'N" ("and,""&," etc.) would still not be sufficient.

On 2011-06-16 00:56, cheekytiki wrote:
No, they are only protecting thier name in the areas they have trademarked it, so you can happily call almost anything else "Painkiller" as long as it is not within the drinks industry.
Like everything, there are two sides to every story. Pussers did the right thing in trying to protect thier copyright, but, could have done it in a less heavy handed way, hell, they could have played the whole thing to their advantage. PKNY stood up to keepiing thier name but could have been a little more understanding and played the whole thing to their advantage.
Trademarks are expensive to buy, and if you do not enforce them it makes them harder to protect.

Two things: Pusser's TMed the name for a restaurant/bar/etc. AFTER the PKNY opened its doors. (They should have have TMed the name for use with a bar/restaurant first.) Also I read -- this may very well be wrong -- that Pusser's TMed the drink name as "Pusser's Painkiller" and not as a plain ol' "Painkiller."

Finally, I really don't care about how much, legally, in the right Pusser's is. It doesn't matter to me they didn't break the law; what matters to me is that, from what I can see, they abused the legal loopholes that allowed them to trademark a drink they didn't invent, ten years after it was invented, and invented with rums not theirs. I think that had it gone to trial, Pusser's may well have lost. But I am 99.99999999% certain PKNY simply didn't have the dollars to take this to trial. In my professional life I have seen so many instances of a larger company placing a smaller company in the "You can't afford to fight us, even if you're right" position.

Does Pusser's have a right to pursue all legal remedies to protect their trademark? Yes. Do I have the legal right to refrain from ever purchasing anything of Pusser's ever again, and strenuously seeking to convince as many other people to do likewise? Mm-hmm.

So, no Pusser's for me from here on out.

Post #593901 by jokeiii on Thu, Jun 16, 2011 6:46 AM