Don't buy Kwak! read on...

rejtable · Post by **rejtable** » Thu Nov 29, 2012 9:49 am

Can I get either one of those at Bed, Bath and Beyond?

mintjellie · Post by **mintjellie** » Thu Nov 29, 2012 11:02 am

rejtable wrote:Can I get either one of those at Bed, Bath and Beyond?

Belgian · Post by **Belgian** » Thu Nov 29, 2012 12:48 pm

atomeyes wrote:
Belgian wrote: So if it Kwak's like a Kwak glass... it should be a Kwak.
go and re-read my original post. i added pics of the glassware. it is not similar in any sense other than they both need a (wooden) stand to keep upright.

So then it doesn't Kwak like a Kwak glass. It's kind of horny, baby. Mike Myers should sue for that!

cfrancis · Post by **cfrancis** » Thu Nov 29, 2012 3:33 pm

Now I see the glass. OK it's a stretch. I understand where it came from but it's something they probably shouldn't have done.

atomeyes · Post by **atomeyes** » Thu Nov 29, 2012 4:09 pm

cfrancis wrote:Now I see the glass. OK it's a stretch. I understand where it came from but it's something they probably shouldn't have done.

i disagree with you 100%.
i see zero trademark, patent or copyright infringement.

Lukie · Post by **Lukie** » Fri Nov 30, 2012 2:48 am

atomeyes wrote:
cfrancis wrote:Now I see the glass. OK it's a stretch. I understand where it came from but it's something they probably shouldn't have done.
i disagree with you 100%.
i see zero trademark, patent or copyright infringement.

Nike didn't invent the check mark yet they have strict copyright infringements for it. Any business which tries to market under that symbol or anything similar will get their asses handed to them in court. Countless other examples abound of businesses not being the originators of logos, symbols, phrases etc., but being the first ones to bring it to a mass market for commercial purposes and securing legal rights to that symbol. What matters most in these cases is who secured the legal rights to the object first, not where it first came from. The only question I would have in this case is whether the other glass is similar enough to be deemed a copy of it.

atomeyes · Post by **atomeyes** » Fri Nov 30, 2012 8:58 am

Lukie wrote:
atomeyes wrote:
cfrancis wrote:Now I see the glass. OK it's a stretch. I understand where it came from but it's something they probably shouldn't have done.
i disagree with you 100%.
i see zero trademark, patent or copyright infringement.
Nike didn't invent the check mark yet they have strict copyright infringements for it. Any business which tries to market under that symbol or anything similar will get their asses handed to them in court. Countless other examples abound of businesses not being the originators of logos, symbols, phrases etc., but being the first ones to bring it to a mass market for commercial purposes and securing legal rights to that symbol. What matters most in these cases is who secured the legal rights to the object first, not where it first came from. The only question I would have in this case is whether the other glass is similar enough to be deemed a copy of it.

The analogy is more like "Nike created the first running shoe and won't let anyone else create a running shoe".
the only parallel between the 2 glasses is a wooden stand that holds them up.
might as well sue a candle company because you claim you invented the candellabra.

MatttthewGeorge · Post by **MatttthewGeorge** » Fri Nov 30, 2012 9:22 am

MatttthewGeorge wrote:thanks for posting the pics. I was on Kwak's side until I saw them. It's not even a yard stick, it's a horn. Kwak is clearly offside, IMO.

That being said, I'm still gonna enjoy the Kwak I have, especially since I have the Kwak yard stick (not a horn).

cfrancis · Post by **cfrancis** » Fri Nov 30, 2012 9:37 am

The best thing is we are arguing over a copyright that none of us know what is actually included in the copyright.

My guess is the copyright contains the shape of the glass and the fact that it is held by a wooden form.

IF that is the case then there is copyright infringement on any glass that is held up by a wooden form regardless of the shape of the glass.

Belgian · Post by **Belgian** » Fri Nov 30, 2012 2:44 pm

I suppose there is very little 'customary' use of a wooden stand for a glass, even if the glass shape is different. That stand literally does stand out as unique.

With mere glass shape, if you had somebody suing over a classic Weissbier glass that has had 'customary' use by dozens of brewers, that might have far less of a leg (or stand) to stand on based on long widespread use.

On the other hand, how the hell else would you present a horn-shaped glass. Gravity dictates that would not work at all without a stand.

The glass alone would not compel me to buy either beer.

Cale · Post by **Cale** » Fri Nov 30, 2012 2:55 pm

Although much more minimalistic, Steenberge's Leute Bokbier also requires a piece of wood to stand on its own:

saints_gambit · Post by **saints_gambit** » Fri Nov 30, 2012 7:38 pm

Buy some Kwak if you feel like it. I'm not sure that anyone is hooked on Kwak, and I'm certainly not going to push Kwak onto you. I just find it ridiculous that you need a specially crafted glass apparatus to get the best out of Kwak.

Also, who the hell serves beer in a glass horn? That sucker's breaking the first time you wash it.

MatttthewGeorge · Post by **MatttthewGeorge** » Fri Nov 30, 2012 8:08 pm

When I lived in Alberta Kwak had a giftpack with the glass and two (I think) bottles. I got it for Xmas, enjoyed them, then put the glass away when I moved back to Ontario thinking I would never use it again. The LCBO bringing it in was good enough reason to dig out my glass and buy a couple of bottles, but overall I would agree with the general consensus here that the beer is slightly above average but nothing to get too excited about.