Disputin’

Reads 11252 • Replies 56 • Started Tuesday, November 24, 2009 1:32:45 PM CT

The forums you're viewing are the static, archived version. You won't be able to post or reply here.
Our new, modern forums are here:
RateBeer Forums

Thread Frozen

Message j12601 P beers 14608 º places 583 º 13:32 Tue 11/24/2009 De Molen and North Coast The label for the "Disputin" is rather funny. Shame they couldn’t get together and do something Collaboration-Not-Litigation style and both still keep the same name.
Message 17thfloor beers 2444 º places 19 º 14:24 Tue 11/24/2009 Props to Menno for handling this ridiculous situation... North Coast is looking not so great now
Message Davinci beers 295 º places 10 º 16:15 Tue 11/24/2009 Damnit, this is all getting rediculous. Menno has like a three barrel brewhouse, if that, and probably exports a pallet or so of this beer to the states every year. His bottle costs over $20 as opposed to north coasts $8 four pack. Oh, look at all the confusion in the market... how the hell am i supposed to tell the difference between these two products. Oh I figured that northcoast opened another brewery in the netherlands... oh wait, I’m totally retarded. So we are seeing a trickle down effect now? Macros sue Microbreweries so the microbreweries now have to sue the pico/nanobreweries. upon deciding to get into this industry I have always been so delighted at the comraderie of the craft brewers, this is a step backwards for our industry in my opinion and am not pleased. Cheers Menno, your an awesome brewer!
Message 17thfloor beers 2444 º places 19 º 16:26 Tue 11/24/2009 well... technically North Coast does have grounds to protect their brand name because it falls under the same category - Alcoholic Beverages- Beer (the fact that they are both stouts is irrelevant) however, where it gets fuzzy is that Rasputin, and his likeness, is a historical figure, so I’m not quite sure how that is protected...

Message kryptic 16:30 Tue 11/24/2009 Originally posted by 17thfloor however, where it gets fuzzy is that Rasputin, and his likeness, is a historical figure, so I’m not quite sure how that is protected... Try calling your beer Samuel Adams and see how well that flies...
Message Davinci beers 295 º places 10 º 16:31 Tue 11/24/2009 Oh, I’m not saying that they don’t have grounds to sue. i believe they are well within their rediculous rights to do so. I just find it strange that they felt threatened enough by this product to pursue the matter. As the article stated it gives them leverage in possible future suits... but really, is this what we are coming to?
Message 17thfloor beers 2444 º places 19 º 16:37 Tue 11/24/2009 Originally posted by kryptic Originally posted by 17thfloor however, where it gets fuzzy is that Rasputin, and his likeness, is a historical figure, so I’m not quite sure how that is protected... Try calling your beer Samuel Adams and see how well that flies... Yea, that is F’d up... they have almost made "Sam Adams" a ’famous’ mark providing it wider protection than a normal mark... garbage here is Rasputin soda... maybe I’ll make a Sam Adam’s soda... "Word Mark RASPUTIN Goods and Services IC 032. US 045 046 048. G & S: soft drinks. FIRST USE: 20010915. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20050730 Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING Serial Number 76547646 Filing Date September 29, 2003 Current Filing Basis 1A Original Filing Basis 1B Published for Opposition April 12, 2005 Registration Number 3004790 Registration Date October 4, 2005 Owner (REGISTRANT) Gabuchian, Varujan INDIVIDUAL UNITED STATES 1146 Central Avenue, #602 Glendale CALIFORNIA 912021858 Type of Mark TRADEMARK Register PRINCIPAL Live/Dead Indicator LIVE" also, here is the Old Rasputin trademark "Word Mark OLD RASPUTIN Translations The non-Latin characters in the mark transliterate to Syerdyechni droog nye rodeetcya vdroog. Goods and Services IC 032. US 045 046 048. G & S: Beer. FIRST USE: 19950602. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19960207 Mark Drawing Code (3) DESIGN PLUS WORDS, LETTERS, AND/OR NUMBERS Serial Number 78404418 Filing Date April 19, 2004 Current Filing Basis 1A Original Filing Basis 1A Published for Opposition December 9, 2008 Registration Number 3580507 Registration Date February 24, 2009 Owner (REGISTRANT) North Coast Brewing Co., Inc. CORPORATION CALIFORNIA 455 North Main Street Fort Bragg CALIFORNIA 95437 Attorney of Record Jone Lemos Disclaimer NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE "RUSSIAN IMPERIAL STOUT" and "BREWING CO". APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN Description of Mark The color(s) black and gold is/are claimed as a feature of the mark. The mark consists of likeness of the historical figure Rasputin, together with the words "Old Rasputin Russian Imperial Stout" and Russian characters, the English translation of which is "A dear friend is not to be found instantly." The mark also includes the circular logo bearing the words "North Coast Brewing Co.", together with the design of a whale’s tail and two sea birds emerging from the open sea. The color gold appears in the foreground and in the border design. The color black appears in the background as well as in the foreign wording and the wording "OLD RASPUTIN". Type of Mark TRADEMARK Register PRINCIPAL Live/Dead Indicator LIVE"
Message 17thfloor beers 2444 º places 19 º 16:44 Tue 11/24/2009 http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/10/25/trademark-dispute-of-the-day-sam-adams-v-sam-adams/

Message SamGamgee P beers 2452 º places 182 º 17:20 Tue 11/24/2009 This, coupled with North Coast’s email against freshness dating on bottles that was posted over on BA, is making their beer a lot less appealing to me. And I mean, this just piles on top of their ridiculous gauging on the price of the anniversary Old Rasputin this year. I totally understand their legal grounds here, but this is just sad. They make some good beer, but their business side seems to be pretty lousy.
Message ketchepillar beers 1218 º places 18 º 17:28 Tue 11/24/2009 Originally posted by SamGamgee This, coupled with North Coast’s email against freshness dating on bottles that was posted over on BA. Link por favor. Also, I don’t think that it isn’t all that ridiculous in this case, seeing as they’re both stouts. Gotta cover your ass I suppose.
Message kryptic 17:48 Tue 11/24/2009 Originally posted by ketchepillar Originally posted by SamGamgee This, coupled with North Coast’s email against freshness dating on bottles that was posted over on BA. Link por favor. http://beeradvocate.com/forum/read/2417253