Rock Art Brewery vs. Hansen Beverage Company, a recent legal battle forged not in court but on the net. Rock Art Brewery is a small Vermont based brewery with only seven employees which was recently issued a cease and desist letter by the lawyers of Hansen Beverage Company, the beverage conglomerate that owns Monster Energy Drinks, a market leader.
The small Vermont brewery began selling a brew named “The Vermonster” in 2007. Hansen Beverage Company thinks the name could confuse consumers and make them believe their is some relation between the craft beer and the well known energy drink. They feel the matter is especially troubling because the Monster Drink company claims plans to enter the alcoholic beverage space. On the surface, if Monster Energy has legitimate interest in entering the beer market in the relative future than this is of legitimate concern. But even cursory research into trademark law and precedent reveals the true reason for Hansen Beverage’s proactive legal moves. The precedent is that trademarks are something that need to be actively and aggressively defended, almost regardless of actual threatening infringement. The courts have adopted a sort of “use it or lose it” attitude. That means it is of paramount importance that one pays the renewal fees to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, display the sign of trademark being either an “R” in a circle if federally registered, A “TM” for common law, or “SM” for common law servicemarks. And lastly one must search for cases of trademark infringement and respond swiftly, taking action if only because if you don’t take it seriously, the courts won’t either and you risk losing the trademark altogether. This was the thinking behind Hansen Beverage Company in ...
... middle of paper ...
...r the categories: “Non-alcoholic beverages, namely, energy drinks, excluding perishable beverage products that contain fruit juice or soy.” and “Nutritional Supplements.” On the other hand is a trademark application filed on 6/23/09 by Rock Art Brewery for “The Vermonster” under the category of “beer.” We have similar names, but in a very different spirit, claimed on far apart dates in obviously discernibly different categories. All of this leading to what is probably a frivolous lawsuit, that is acceptable based on the practices and precedent set by trademark law decisions. Neither side is to blame here, I see that both of them did everything they could and should to defend themselves. The real problem is the system that led them to believe this fight had to happen in the first place. The world of intellectual property in general, could use some serious tort reform!
under Stout PLC. The winery was positioned itself as a premium category brand and its
v. VIP Prods., LLC 666 F. Supp. 2d 974 (Mo., 2008) Anheuser-Busch makes a distinction between confusing and non-confusing parodies, the latter being protected as a parody. The important factors in the case were that the price point of the products was the same, they were directly competing goods and the survey showed that there was a level of confusion (30.3% were confused), in addition, consideration was placed on irreparable harm caused by the defendants use of the mark, the priority lay with the first to register the trademark, lastly the District Court considered public interest, i.e. whether the public was deceived. Similarly in Starbucks Corp v. Wolfe’s Borough Coffee Inc., 588 F3d 97 (2d Cir. 2007) the court distinguished Louis Vuitton S.A. v Haute Diggty Dog, LLC, 507 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. 2007) by holding that if (as in the Louis Vuitton case), the mark is used in non-competing goods, the defendant conveyed that it was not the source of the plaintiffs product and if the actual use of the mark does not impair the distinctiveness of the plaintiff’s mark there may be an argument in favor of the defendant, however, if the defendant’s humor is not conveyed to the public, and does not increase the public identification of the plaintiff’s mark with its mark it will fail to establish
Belgium is known for a culture of high-quality beer and this concept was formulated by an electrical engineer from Fort Collins, Colorado. The electrical engineer, Jeff Lebesch, was traveling through Belgium on his fat-tired mountain bike when he envisioned the same high-quality beer in Colorado. Lebesch acquired the special strain of yeast used in Belgium and took it back to his basement in Colorado and the experimentation process was initiated. His friends were the samplers and when they approved the beer it was marketed. In 1991, Lebesch opened the New Belgium Brewing Company (NBB) with his wife, Kim Jordan, as the marketing director. The first beer and continued bestseller, Fat Tire Amber Ale, was named after the bike ride in Belgium. The operation went from a basement to an old railroad depot and then expanded into a custom-built facility in 1995. The custom-built facility included an automatic brew house, quality-assurance labs and technological innovations. NBB offers permanent, seasonal and one-time only beers with a mission to be a lucrative brewery while making their love and talent visible. In the cases presented by the noted authors (Ferrell & Simpson, 2008), discusses the inception, marketing strategy, brand personality, ethics and social responsibility that New Belgium Brewing Company has demonstrated. The key facts with New Belgium Brewing Company are the marketing strategy, promotion, internal environment and social responsibility with the critical issues of the public, brand slogan, growth and competition.
Mountain Man has many unique factors that add value to their brand. First and foremost, Mountain Man is family owned and therefore perceived as being high quality and considered a legacy product. The lager also has a reputation of being a miner’s beer and many people seem to drink Mountain Man in an attempt to connect with previous generations. Their fathers and grandfathers drank Mountain Man and they want to drink it too. Mountain Man lager is respected for its old school, regional brew characteristics (strong, dark, and bitter). The beer’s primary consumers are mainly blue-collar men who are in the middle-to-lower income bracket and over the age of 45. Due to these unique qualities, Mountain Man had created a str...
“ Criminal law is the body of law that relates to crime.” (Wikipedia, 2014) This law encompasses several different aspects of our government and the ways used to regulate them. Maintaining the peace and order of the public is one aspect. Law enforcement officers also try to keep good conduct of the public. Anyone who places the safety of the public in jeopardy, is in violation of this law. Punishment is used in a variety of ways to discipline any person who breaks these laws. There are four main sources used in today’s criminal law:
As stated in the case, “the market for energy drinks was growing; between 2010 and 2012, the market for energy drinks had grown by 40%. It was estimated to be $8.5 billion in the United States in 2013 [and] forecasts projected that figure to reach $13.5 billion by 2018” (pg 5). However, much of this market’s revenue -- 85% in fact -- is dominated by five major brands, while the remaining 15% is split between approximately 30 regional and national companies. (pg. 5). With this saturated market, it might not be best for Crescent Pure to enter as a completely new product to the industry, as there is the possibility that it will be squeezed out of the profit shares by more established brands -- especially if it is not properly secure in its identity. In addition, while the market for energy drinks appeared to be growing at an exponential rate compared to the market for sports drinks -- which increased only 9% in five years and would be at approximately 60% of the rate for energy drinks in 2017 (pg 6) -- the consumers appeared to be wary of partaking in the market for several reasons, which would potentially harm the reach of Crescent Pure. These concerns included rising news reports discussing the safety of energy drinks (pg. 5). Taking into consideration the data provided in the case that concerns reasonings of why consumers choose specific drinks over others, there
The low-calorie, high-intensity sweetener market has been dominated by one major player, NutraSweet, with annual sales of $711M and about 80% market share (the total market in 1986 was $884M annual sales). NutraSweet, a monopolist in the industry, was able to charge premium prices and successfully capture the majority of the pie. Also, the market was expected to grow 15% annually, with a 70% projected sales growth in Europe and Canada. However, since NutraSweet’s original patents were due to expire soon (Europe/Canada market patent expires in 1987 and US in 1992), a new entrant was threatening to enter the lucrative low-calorie sweetener market – HSC.
Monster Energy drinks are carefully crafted to appeal to athletes, musicians and today’s youth. It comes in a 16 ounce can that is sporty and colourful in comparison with other energy drink competitors. The product comes in a unique, glossy dark can that contains florescent green (or blue, red, yellow, purple) logo (claw marks in shape of an M) giving it an overall sleek and stylish look.
Facts: Two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter a colored woman and Richard Loving a white man, got married in the District of Columbia. The Loving's returned to Virginia and established their marriage. The Caroline court issued an indictment charging the Loving's with violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages. The state decides, who can and cannot get married. The Loving's were convicted of violating 20-55 of Virginia's code.
The brewing industry was once held to competition among many breweries in small geographic areas. That was almost a century ago. The U.S. brewing industry today is characterized by the dominance of three brewers, which I will talk about in this paper. There are many factors today that make the beer industry an oligopoly. Such factors include various advancements in technology (packaging, shipping and production), takeovers and mergers, economies of scale, barriers to entry, high concentration, and many other factors that I will cover in this paper. Over the course of the paper I will try to define an oligopoly, give a brief history of the brewing industry, and finally to show how the brewing industry today is an oligopoly.
Big global companies such as Coca Cola and Pepsi have introduced their own energy drink versions to their product base. Mother (by Coca Cola), Amp (Pepsi), V, Battery, 180, RedEye and Bennu being just some in the ever-growing energy drink market.
As a consequence of the separate legal entity and limited liability doctrines within the UK’s unitary based system, company law had to develop responses to the ‘agency costs’ that arose. The central response is directors’ duties; these are owed by the directors to the company and operate as a counterbalance to the vast scope of powers given to the board. The benefit of the unitary board system is reflected in the efficiency gains it brings, however the disadvantage is clear, the directors may act to further their own interests to the detriment of the company. It is evident within executive remuneration that directors are placed in a stark conflict of interest position in that they may disproportionately reward themselves. The counterbalance to this concern is S175 Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) this acts to prevent certain conflicts arising and punishes directors who find themselves in this position. Furthermore, there are specific provisions within the CA 2006 that empower third parties such as shareholders to influence directors’ remuneration.
The beverage industry is highly competitive and presents many alternative products to satisfy a need from within. The principal areas of competition are in pricing, packaging, product innovation, the development of new products and flavours as well as promotional and marketing strategies. Companies can be grouped into two categories: global operations such as PepsiCo, Coca-Cola Company, Monster Beverage Corp. and Red Bull and regional operations such as Ro...
One could categorize Coca-Cola as a CPG company. Technically it could be thrown into that bucket, but in reality, Coca-Cola is not competing with companies like General Mills, Procter & Gamble, or Reckitt Benckiser. Coca-Cola sells perishable drinks, not reusable or disposable products. Coca-Cola is almost a medicine. As a matter of fact, the company’s original marketing strategies revolved around the ability of the drink to cure headaches. Its primary competitors are PepsiCo, Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, and less obvious, Starbucks and Nestle. As Coca-Cola partners with Dunkin Donuts on a new joint venture offering bottled coffee products, they enter into a niche product market where Nestle and Starbucks are their primary competitors (WSJ). Thus, if one was to classify Coca-Cola as something other than non-alcoholic beverages, then they could classify them as a bottling company. We chose to stick with the beverage industry because it requires more expertise to understand the chemistry and manufacturing involved with advantages in the unfamiliar bottling industry than it does to understand how brand equity drives competitive
Over the years, many companies such as scrabble, Tylenol, Channel, Louis Vuitton and even Polo Ralph Lauren (PRL) Corporation have had to fight to protect their intellectual property. By looking more specifically into Polo Ralph Lauren, a fashion company that offers a range of products from clothing to home furnishings, this paper will explore trademark laws and how these laws could be advantageous one hand and limit one group and limit business abilities on another.