The Grinch Who Stole Cascadia

[Derek]

It also makes me slap my head when, with regards to the Cascadia mark, the bloggers haven't had, to my knowledge, a single BC affected brewery go on the record with a statement.

There's a few statements...

http://metronews.ca/news/vancouver/4544 ... ing-style/

Doug Devlin, director of marketing for Granville Island, said the brewery respects trademarks, but given the rising popularity of the dark, hoppy ale better known as black ale across the border it wants the freedom to sell it under the same name again.

“We still believe that that is an emerging style of beer,” he said, adding that despite SteamWorks’ opposition he is hoping a friendly conversation with the company will yield some flexibility.

http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2012/11/2 ... ark-claim/

According to Gershkovitch, the four calls were just a friendly reminder about Steamworks legal ownership of the trademark, though one cease-and-desist order was issued to Phillips Brewing of Victoria.

Brewer Matt Phillips said despite the order that Steamworks was “gracious” about the dispute and agreed to let them use all the labels and packaging already printed bearing the name so they wouldn’t be out of pocket.

“I think Cascadian dark ale is a legitimate style,” said Phillips. “We just have other fights that we care more about.”

It's interesting they managed to trademark Nitro on both sides of the border... Left Hand is going after them (they released a nitro bottle last year):
http://blogs.westword.com/cafesociety/2 ... nd_bre.php

I'm surprised Diageo hasn't raised a stink... none of these little brewers have pockets that deep!

[JasonTremblay]

Hi Derek,

Thanks for the links!

Mostly what I was getting at was BarleyMowat's assertions that several BC brewers were, off the record, calling the trademark BS, a relatively loaded expression. So to speak. Instead, what we have is SteamWorks placing a couple polite phone calls and a cease and desist letter with a pretty fair resolution.

To me, those actions don't seem bullying so much as they seem to be a reasonable way to protect one's mark. SteamWorks could have gone heavy-handed with a demand for damages, but didn't.

[JasonTremblay]

Regardless of whether Steamworks is in the right here, this has already turned into a badly handled PR nightmare for them.

I don't really know what BC's beer culture is like ... but, if it's anything like Ontario's, beer nerds, the folks who REALLY care about authenticity and 1 week old IPAs, account for a relatively small portion of craft beer sales. Simply put, most craft beer drinkers don't care all that much about who makes the beer as long as it tastes good and seems craft-y (witness the concerns about "faux craft").

Most craft beer drinkers will probably go, "That dirty scoundrel!" and forget about the trademark controversy in a week -- most IP controversies are ephemeral to the public, and quickly lose relevancy to everyone save those with vested interests (Amazon's 1-click patent, filesharing lawsuits, etc.).

I will admit, however, that while I did look at your friend's post, my eyes started to glaze over with "excellent exposé from Barley Mowat" and "huge social media backlash". I apologize for that. However, while he does raise some reasonable points ... I think he also jumped on the bandwagon and took an unfortunate tangent into energetically defending Cascadian dark ale while skating around the fact that the term is 3 years old, at best.

Jason

[Derek]

Further reading...

http://www.theprovince.com/life/Tradema ... z2Dab10BOa

http://eastsidebeer.blogspot.ca/2012/11 ... sumer.html

I still don't see how any consumer would ever be confused by the "Cascadian" descriptor...

It's like: You're telling me this Netherworld CDA is from Flying Monkeys? I thought the LCBO imported bottles of cream ale from Steamworks! (even though it has never been bottled or sold outside the pub).

It's not like FM is faking anything or using Steamworks previous success. On the contrary, I think they actually packaged the first 6 pack of CDA!

[jcc]

I don't really know what BC's beer culture is like ... but, if it's anything like Ontario's, beer nerds, the folks who REALLY care about authenticity and 1 week old IPAs, account for a relatively small portion of craft beer sales. Simply put, most craft beer drinkers don't care all that much about who makes the beer as long as it tastes good and seems craft-y (witness the concerns about "faux craft").

Most craft beer drinkers will probably go, "That dirty scoundrel!" and forget about the trademark controversy in a week -- most IP controversies are ephemeral to the public, and quickly lose relevancy to everyone save those with vested interests (Amazon's 1-click patent, filesharing lawsuits, etc.).

I will admit, however, that while I did look at your friend's post, my eyes started to glaze over with "excellent exposé from Barley Mowat" and "huge social media backlash". I apologize for that. However, while he does raise some reasonable points ... I think he also jumped on the bandwagon and took an unfortunate tangent into energetically defending Cascadian dark ale while skating around the fact that the term is 3 years old, at best.

Jason

You are probably right about the majority of people not caring who makes the beer, but the terms Cascadia and Cascadian do have more of a meaning to many people out west which probably is why there is more of an outburst about this from out there. I can't see how trying to stop the use of Cascadian (event though Cascadia was the tradmark) is not going to be a PR problem for Steamworks. But what do I know.

I agree with Derek that it seems odd that anyone could confuse Cascadia with Cascadian, but I suppose that is where the grey area of trademark law comes up and where the lawyers will be the only winners at the end of the day as this could easily drag on for years. Witness Steamworks original attempt to trademark Cascadia, it took 7 years and was only approved in 2006 when GIB dropped the objection after being sold by Cascadia Brands to Molson.

Anyway, I'm more entertained by this whole episode than anything.

Jeremy

[Kel Varnsen]

And most of those opinions tend to be summed up by, "Big meanie!"

This is what is kind of irritating me the more since it seems a lot of the comments/blog posts I read are just from people who don't like how the whole trademark process works. I mean to me it seemed that Steamworks totally played by the rules, and are now being burned for it. Plus like I said this seems way more reasonable than the Racer 5/Red Racer lawsuit or Red Truck sending a cease and desist letter to Phillips over their Blue Truck.

[cmadd]

And most of those opinions tend to be summed up by, "Big meanie!"

This is what is kind of irritating me the more since it seems a lot of the comments/blog posts I read are just from people who don't like how the whole trademark process works. I mean to me it seemed that Steamworks totally played by the rules, and are now being burned for it. Plus like I said this seems way more reasonable than the Racer 5/Red Racer lawsuit or Red Truck sending a cease and desist letter to Phillips over their Blue Truck.

I'm pretty sure neither you nor Jason really read the post that jcc posted. It was a reasoned explanation about the intent and history of trademark law and where this case fits within that context. Perhaps Barley Mowat is a bit of a hot-head and his writing certainly amps up the outrage and entertainment, but that doesn't make this a non-issue nor does it make all craft drinkers hopeless fanboys.

For you re-reading pleasure:

http://hoplogblog.blogspot.ca/2012/11/t ... -beer.html

There's a significant difference between a dispute between two brands (Red Truck vs Blue Truck) and a dispute between a brand and a style-descriptor. This situation is a lot more like the one of Kleenex or Vaseline, where the brand has become a descriptor for the type of product. The only difference is that CDA is clearly a style-descriptor with a history entirely unrelated to the brand Cascadia.

At the end of the day it'll be up to the lawyers to decide this one, and just how the trademark law applies in this case. But let's not pretend for a second that is a trivial case of outraged fanboys. There's plenty at stake, and it's just as mindless and reactionary to express outrage at outrage.

[Kel Varnsen]

There's a significant difference between a dispute between two brands (Red Truck vs Blue Truck) and a dispute between a brand and a style-descriptor. This situation is a lot more like the one of Kleenex or Vaseline, where the brand has become a descriptor for the type of product.

Except when it comes to products like Kleenex or Vaseline or Band-Aid, they have to pretty much constantly fight to make sure that their trademarks are protect. Go to the Kleenex website and you will see that everytime they use the word Kleenex it is followed by the little registed trademark symbol. It is the same reason why in commercials for Band-Aids, they always refer to them as "band-aid brand bandages". And I am sure if I made a facial tissue product and called it Kleenex I would get a nice letter from the legal department of Kleenex's parent company.

The only difference is that CDA is clearly a style-descriptor with a history entirely unrelated to the brand Cascadia.
.

But the style descriptor is also not really all that related to the area of Cascadia since the style was invented in Vermont. Based on that calling it Cascadian dark ale sounds like simple branding to me, not a true descriptor of style (like say Flanders Red Ale, which actually originated in Flanders).

[Derek]

But the style descriptor is also not really all that related to the area of Cascadia since the style was invented in Vermont. Based on that calling it Cascadian dark ale sounds like simple branding to me, not a true descriptor of style (like say Flanders Red Ale, which actually originated in Flanders).

There's certainly a strong argument there, but I for one do not agree:
http://www.bartowel.com/?p=1535

Mitch Steele recently described CDA & black IPA as evolving separately into two somewhat different products:


I sort of agree with him. Black IPA tends to be a dry IPA that's coloured (dehusked carafa?), whereas Cascadian Darks tend to have more of a malt backbone, sometimes bordering on brown ales or even porters. That's a huge generalization, and this naming convention is far from ubiquitous, but I think these sub-styles are headed in that direction.

Rogue's Mogul Madness dates back to '91. I didn't try it then, but recent versions are certainly more of a hoppy amber (or CDA if you will) than what most people would consider as a modern 'Black' IPA.

http://www.rogue.com/beers/mogul-madness-ale.php

HISTORY
Small batches of seasonal beers were traditionally brewed in Europe during the 19th century. Breweries made darker brews, brews with high alcohol content and festive taste. Mogul is a strong ale, darker in color than other pale ales and more assertively hopped-the John Maier trademark. First brewed in 1991.

I know CDA is just a name, but I think it would be a shame to loose it. Matt Philips was a pioneer... having to call his brew an AMERICAN Black Ale is just wrong.

[JasonTremblay]

I'm pretty sure neither you nor Jason really read the post that jcc posted. It was a reasoned explanation about the intent and history of trademark law and where this case fits within that context. Perhaps Barley Mowat is a bit of a hot-head and his writing certainly amps up the outrage and entertainment, but that doesn't make this a non-issue nor does it make all craft drinkers hopeless fanboys.

FWIW, I did re-read the article, forcing my eyes to unglaze after the opening sentences.

My takeaway is that writer was arguing a point, however reasonably (and, occasionally, unreasonably) -- he was making no bones about his bias. He was acting as an advocate against Steamworks' trademark and framed his remarks and arguments in those terms. It's what lawyers do.

He is not a dispassionate observer of the situation.

And I most definitely DID NOT call craft beer drinkers fanboys -- please don't say that, or even hint at it, in reference to me. I would not insult the folks who drink my beer.

Jason

[Cass]

Trademarks are a funny thing. Brands like Kleenex or Band-Aid need to put "brand" after their name as legally they can't use the trademark as a "thing", or it starts to lose it's 'trademark strength'.

I think Jordan hit it on the head that they fell a bit ass-backwards into this - they secured a trademark which in turn became a "thing" around them. The $1 licensing thing is an interesting strategy as it gives them a stronger case, i.e. people are consenting that it's their mark. If someone fought that it's a generic "thing" then the mark becomes murkier. Not that I'm a lawyer or anything, but I've had some experience with this kind of stuff.

[Derek]

Q&A with the Craft Beer Attorney:
http://www.newschoolbeer.com/2012/11/craft-beer.html

And an interesting quote:

Ken Whiteman - Co-Owner at pFriem Family Brewers
I know that we filed an intent to use trademark on Cascadia Brewing Company when we were toying with that name for our brewery. It was granted by the USPTO, meaning they didn't see any conflicts with other trademarks in our field of use. Even if we did pursue it, we wouldn't even think about trying to prevent people from calling their beer a CDA. That's ridiculous.

[JeffPorter]

So far in this, has or is Steamworks taken anyone to court, or is it just a matter of "cease and desists"?

[JerCraigs]

So far in this, has or is Steamworks taken anyone to court, or is it just a matter of "cease and desists"?

I believe the main action so far has been a "shitstorm", to use the technical term

[cmadd]

So far in this, has or is Steamworks taken anyone to court, or is it just a matter of "cease and desists"?

I believe the main action so far has been a "shitstorm", to use the technical term

We have a shit-front moving through.