Posted on 01/10/2014 9:37:52 PM PST by rey
Duckhorn Wine Company has a history of going after wineries that dare to use a duck in their names or labels.
But this time, the winery is hunting a potentially tougher target: the self-professed “redneck royalty” of the hit A&E TV show “Duck Dynasty.”
The Napa Valley winery is going after the Duck Dynasty folks because they’ve used the word “Duck” and an image of a duck on their wines.
That’s right: the reality TV stars with the motto “Faith, Family and Facial Hair” who made their fortune selling duck hunting gear have launched a wine brand, called “Duck Commander.”
In November, the Robertson family of Duck Dynasty fame collaborated with Trinchero Family Estates to produce three wines from California grapes: Triple Threat red blend, Wood Duck chardonnay and Miss Priss pink moscato.
(Excerpt) Read more at pressdemocrat.com ...
Just like wine off of a duck’s back.
There's a product I will never buy again in my lifetime.
No surprise to God. Monsanto and their ilk have been trying to copyright our food supply for years.
Duckhorn should be keeping quiet and smiling. Many wine drinkers will mistakenly try their wine thinking it is a Duck Dynasty product; it it’s good they’ll keep buying it.
Didn’t Microsoft try to copyright the “@”?
Sounds like duck whine to me.
You can copyright a duck? That ought to be a surprise to God.
In this case, there are 17 trademark registrations for wine owned by companies other than Duckhorn, so it’s a crowded field, and Dock Commander is just another different “duck” wine.
Duckhorn loses.
So did Duckhorn pay to have exclusive rights to God’s duck on their bottles? Is this what makes them sole owner of pictures of ducks on wine bottles?
Garth Brooks holds a copyright on the letter “G” and he defends it aggressively. Glenn Beck found out the hard way.
And there are over 1000 trademark registrations and active applications for the letter G, many with a particular style or logo design.
So no one owns the letter. Perhaps Garth owns a particular logo for broadcast entertainment services, and Glenn used a similar logo for similar services.
Bu my Google search can’t find a single legitimate news story on this. Just you and some guy’s facebook page.
Tell ‘em to “Get the flocked!”
Remember some years ago Chrysler sued a guy who owned a bar called “Jeep’s”? He eventually won when he proved that he was born before Jeeps came out.
Didn’t Microsoft try to copyright the “@”?
So did Duckhorn pay to have exclusive rights to God’s duck on their bottles? Is this what makes them sole owner of pictures of ducks on wine bottles?
However, an animal (or ordinary word, or simple symbol) can be exclusively owned for use on particular goods or services.
Don’t try to sell cars with a pony or jaguar on them. Don’t try to sell beer with a red triangle. Don’t try to sell insulation that’s colored pink.
Just pick another brand.
Ooops:”Get flocked!”
This is a PR lawsuit and is absurdly amusing to think that Walmart Shoppers would mistakenly purchase Duck Dynasty wine thinking it’s Duckhorn.
And Duck Commander’s duck is presented markedly differently from the way that Duckhorn presents its duck. This claim is too broad of Duckhorn, and it sounds like a nuisance lawsuit factory that is about to meet its nemesis.
Also the Jeep was a nickname for G.P. (general purpose) open air army trucks before there were any vehicles branded Jeep.
If I understand trademark well enough (I delved into it at one time) there are over a hundred categories of commerce in which one can register a trademark. If you don’t use it you lose it. One could probably market a “Coke” computer just because the Coca-Cola company has not marketed computers and not registered its name as a brand of computer. Of course that would get Coca-Cola’s lawyers all over you anyhow, but if you really had the funds to stick out the quixotic quest, and didn’t settle for paying royalties, you might actually win.
Your understand the law well.
But there is one exception, in that Coca-Cola is a “famous” trademark that is subject to “dilution” of its immense value by use on unrelated goods.
Same for Rolex, Smith and Wesson, Chanel, and other zillion-dollar brands that are recognized by all consumers, not just the consumers of their products.
It seems like unfair corporate welfare, unless you consider that these brands can and often do earn major income by licensing their brand for a wide range of goods.
So, if the vehicle folks or their predecessors from whom they acquired the rights started using Jeep first (and continuously, which is a potential concern) then they may have rights against a saloon. Just as the Xerox saloon wouldn’t last long.
While I’m pontificating, it annoys the amateurs that one has no legal right to use one’s own name as a trademark if it infringes the rights of another trademark owner. This often crops up when someone tries to open a coffee shop using a play on the “Starbucks”. Lesson: if the point of your trademark is to make someone think of another trademark, you’re probably infringing.
Specialized Bicycles sent a cease and desist letter to a small bike shop in Canada called Cafe Robaix. Seems Specialized makes a Robaix model. Turns out Specialized was using Robaix under a license from another bicycle maker that told Specialized to stuff it and then sent a nice letter to the bike shop telling them to keep their name. Still don’t understand how you trademark the name of a town, or the name of an animal. It is like the patent wars over electronics. They are patenting broad ideas, not code or technology.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.