{
Like this:
I talked with Bellwoods Brewery co-founder Mike Clark about the issue.
I reached out to Cowbell for comment, also and Genny Smith, the brewery’s Communications Director, provided this announcement via email: “This matter is in front of the Trademarks Opposition Board, and it would be inappropriate for us to comment on it at this time.”
However, it would seem, not everyone is so enthusiastic about the coming proliferation of a “beer that rings true.”
http://www.bensbeerblog.com
Cowbell Brewery filed an application for their logo on November 19, 2015 and the application includes similar stipulations (although notably includes the inclusion of “noisemakers, golf towels, golf balls, [and] golf umbrellas,” which those dummies in Bellwoods didn’t think of branding).
With the “battle of the bells” though, it seems unlikely to me that either party will back down. Bellwoods is a well-established and critically acclaimed craft brewery that’s fiercely aware of their image and branding and Cowbell is obviously ambitious, heavily invested in their new business, and very business savvy and thus seem unlikely to balk at the concept of using their estimated Scrooge-McDuck-levels-of-wealth to fight a protracted legal brewery before Bellwoods taps out. Accordingly, this conflict is most likely still in the early rounds and it could be some time before a winner is announced and the…(wait for it)…final bell sounds.
Hey! Like what you’re reading? Throw me a vote in this year’s Golden Tap Awards. Select your favorites in most things Ontario beer–and don’t forget your favourite beer writer.
A little digging reveals that Bellwoods has officially opposed issuance of a trademark registration to Cowbell for this logo. The opposition is ongoing.
Cowbell Brewing, I have learned, has actually been in a quiet legal conflict with Toronto’s Bellwoods Brewery over Cowbell’s entitlement to register a bell-themed trademark in Canada.
Groups: The Politics of Drinking | Tags: Toronto, Canadian, Bellwoods Brewery, cowbell brewery, blyth, trademarks, intellectual, property, office, michael clark, penny smith | Permalink.
{
Interestingly, this is not the first example of trademark problems hitting on Canada’s beer scene. Moosehead, by way of example, has been known to get bent out of shape for using the word “moose” when it comes to beer, even threatening legal action against Subdury’s Stack Brewing in 2014 for having the audacity to call two of their beers “Angry Moose” and “Friendly Moose.” Stack ended up taking the path of least resistance and rebranded these beers Stack ’72 and Shatter Cone, respectively. This past year, Smithworks brewery at Peterborough changed the name of their entire business to Smithavens using the official line that “the Smith family team realized their beer sounded too much like another product” and nary a mention of Smithwicks parent company Diageo, who presumably brought down the hammer. Frankly, given the proliferation of breweries in Ontario and Canada generally, it’s kind of surprising that there haven’t been disputes over beer titles and brewery logos. There are so jump puns to go around.
Documentation obtained by Ben’s Beer Blog confirms that an examiner with the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) initially flagged the Cowbell trademark registration above as problematic. But, Cowbell’s lawyer reportedly convinced the examiner that the two marks would not be confusing because CIPO subsequently issued an “approval” and notice of advertisement, i.e they posted it in the Trademarks Journal and allowed a window of time during which someone could oppose the registration. Bellwoods used the window to oppose the registration and, so far as I can tell, the document is essentially frozen until that opposition is solved.|
Published at Tue, 29 Aug 2017 14:35:13 +0000
“We have experienced multiple instances of consumer confusion between Bellwoods and Cowbell branding in the last year. We personally reached out to Cowbell in 2016 in the hopes of sorting out the issue but we were unable to reach an agreement.”
Cowbell Brewery filed an application for their logo on November 19, 2015 and the application includes similar stipulations (although notably includes the inclusion of “noisemakers, golf towels, golf balls, [and] golf umbrellas,” which those dummies in Bellwoods didn’t think of branding).
Through the Government of Canada’s publicly accessible trademarks database, I have discovered that Bellwoods Brewery indeed has a registered trademark for its bell design for use in association with beer, operation of a brewery, and a handful of merchandise items. This trademark application was filed on January 2, 2013 and registered on May 27, 2014.
With the “battle of the bells” though, it seems unlikely to me that either party will back down. Bellwoods is a well-established and critically acclaimed craft brewery that’s fiercely aware of their image and branding and Cowbell is obviously ambitious, heavily invested in their new business, and very business savvy and thus seem unlikely to balk at the concept of using their estimated Scrooge-McDuck-levels-of-wealth to fight a protracted legal brewery before Bellwoods taps out. Accordingly, this conflict is most likely still in the early rounds and it could be some time before a winner is announced and the…(wait for it)…final bell sounds.
Cowbell Brewing, I have learned, has actually been in a quiet legal conflict with Toronto’s Bellwoods Brewery over Cowbell’s entitlement to register a bell-themed trademark in Canada.
A couple weeks ago, I wrote about the ambitious opening of Cowbell Brewing in Blyth. For the most part, news of the 26,000 square foot destination brewery was met with excitement and the responses to the opening of the brewery were entirely positive.
{
Groups: The Politics of Drinking | Tags: Toronto, Canadian, Bellwoods Brewery, cowbell brewery, blyth, trademarks, intellectual, property, office, michael clark, penny smith | Permalink.
Author: Ben
And indeed, this matter is in front of the Trademarks Opposition Board, so it is not clear to me what the outcome might be. If you’ve seen the scope of Cowbell’s branding initiative (packed beers already in the LCBO, signs emblazoned on a 26,000 square foot brewery, a fleet of vehicles, clothes, and–presumably–golf towels coming shortly), it appears clear that a decision in Bellwoods favour will represents a costly outcome for Cowbell. They could decide to alter their logo so as to clear up potential “confusion,” or (I’m assuming) they could provide a bunch of cash to Bellwoods to make this go away. And there is always the chance that the board will side with Cowbell and we have two breweries in Ontario, confusing the shit out of everyone who drinks beer. Or not.
http://www.bensbeerblog.com
In terms of the particulars of their present opposition, Clark offered, “We do not agree with the content of the Cowbell appeal and we are opposing the application.”
Hey! Like what you’re reading? Throw me a vote in this year’s Golden Tap Awards. Select your favorites in most things Ontario beer–and don’t forget your favourite beer writer.
However, it would seem, not everyone is so enthusiastic about the coming proliferation of a “beer that rings true.”
Interestingly, this is not the first example of trademark problems hitting on Canada’s beer scene. Moosehead, by way of example, has been known to get bent out of shape for using the word “moose” when it comes to beer, even threatening legal action against Subdury’s Stack Brewing in 2014 for having the audacity to call two of their beers “Angry Moose” and “Friendly Moose.” Stack ended up taking the path of least resistance and rebranded these beers Stack ’72 and Shatter Cone, respectively. This past year, Smithworks brewery at Peterborough changed the name of their entire business to Smithavens using the official line that “the Smith family team realized their beer sounded too much like another product” and nary a mention of Smithwicks parent company Diageo, who presumably brought down the hammer. Frankly, given the proliferation of breweries in Ontario and Canada generally, it’s kind of surprising that there haven’t been disputes over beer titles and brewery logos. There are so jump puns to go around.
I talked with Bellwoods Brewery co-founder Mike Clark about the issue.
A little digging reveals that Bellwoods has officially opposed issuance of a trademark registration to Cowbell for this logo. The opposition is ongoing.
I reached out to Cowbell for comment, also and Genny Smith, the brewery’s Communications Director, provided this announcement via email: “This matter is in front of the Trademarks Opposition Board, and it would be inappropriate for us to comment on it at this time.”|
Like this:
“We have experienced multiple instances of consumer confusion between Bellwoods and Cowbell branding in the last year. We personally reached out to Cowbell in 2016 in the hopes of sorting out the issue but we were unable to reach an agreement.”
Interestingly, this is not the first example of trademark problems hitting on Canada’s beer scene. Moosehead, by way of example, has been known to get bent out of shape for using the word “moose” when it comes to beer, even threatening legal action against Subdury’s Stack Brewing in 2014 for having the audacity to call two of their beers “Angry Moose” and “Friendly Moose.” Stack ended up taking the path of least resistance and rebranded these beers Stack ’72 and Shatter Cone, respectively. This past year, Smithworks brewery at Peterborough changed the name of their entire business to Smithavens using the official line that “the Smith family team realized their beer sounded too much like another product” and nary a mention of Smithwicks parent company Diageo, who presumably brought down the hammer. Frankly, given the proliferation of breweries in Ontario and Canada generally, it’s kind of surprising that there haven’t been disputes over beer titles and brewery logos. There are so jump puns to go around.
A couple weeks ago, I wrote about the ambitious opening of Cowbell Brewing in Blyth. For the most part, news of the 26,000 square foot destination brewery was met with excitement and the responses to the opening of the brewery were entirely positive.
Documentation obtained by Ben’s Beer Blog confirms that an examiner with the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) initially flagged the Cowbell trademark registration above as problematic. But, Cowbell’s lawyer reportedly convinced the examiner that the two marks would not be confusing because CIPO subsequently issued an “approval” and notice of advertisement, i.e they posted it in the Trademarks Journal and allowed a window of time during which someone could oppose the registration. Bellwoods used the window to oppose the registration and, so far as I can tell, the document is essentially frozen until that opposition is solved.
http://www.bensbeerblog.com
Hey! Like what you’re reading? Throw me a vote in this year’s Golden Tap Awards. Select your favorites in most things Ontario beer–and don’t forget your favourite beer writer.
And indeed, this matter is in front of the Trademarks Opposition Board, so it is not clear to me what the outcome might be. If you’ve seen the scope of Cowbell’s branding initiative (packed beers already in the LCBO, signs emblazoned on a 26,000 square foot brewery, a fleet of vehicles, clothes, and–presumably–golf towels coming shortly), it appears clear that a decision in Bellwoods favour will represents a costly outcome for Cowbell. They could decide to alter their logo so as to clear up potential “confusion,” or (I’m assuming) they could provide a bunch of cash to Bellwoods to make this go away. And there is always the chance that the board will side with Cowbell and we have two breweries in Ontario, confusing the shit out of everyone who drinks beer. Or not.
I talked with Bellwoods Brewery co-founder Mike Clark about the issue.
Groups: The Politics of Drinking | Tags: Toronto, Canadian, Bellwoods Brewery, cowbell brewery, blyth, trademarks, intellectual, property, office, michael clark, penny smith | Permalink.
Author: Ben
However, it would seem, not everyone is so enthusiastic about the coming proliferation of a “beer that rings true.”
Cowbell Brewery filed an application for their logo on November 19, 2015 and the application includes similar stipulations (although notably includes the inclusion of “noisemakers, golf towels, golf balls, [and] golf umbrellas,” which those dummies in Bellwoods didn’t think of branding).
Through the Government of Canada’s publicly accessible trademarks database, I have discovered that Bellwoods Brewery indeed has a registered trademark for its bell design for use in association with beer, operation of a brewery, and a handful of merchandise items. This trademark application was filed on January 2, 2013 and registered on May 27, 2014.
Published at Tue, 29 Aug 2017 14:35:13 +0000
With the “battle of the bells” though, it seems unlikely to me that either party will back down. Bellwoods is a well-established and critically acclaimed craft brewery that’s fiercely aware of their image and branding and Cowbell is obviously ambitious, heavily invested in their new business, and very business savvy and thus seem unlikely to balk at the concept of using their estimated Scrooge-McDuck-levels-of-wealth to fight a protracted legal brewery before Bellwoods taps out. Accordingly, this conflict is most likely still in the early rounds and it could be some time before a winner is announced and the…(wait for it)…final bell sounds.
A little digging reveals that Bellwoods has officially opposed issuance of a trademark registration to Cowbell for this logo. The opposition is ongoing.
In terms of the particulars of their present opposition, Clark offered, “We do not agree with the content of the Cowbell appeal and we are opposing the application.”
Cowbell Brewing, I have learned, has actually been in a quiet legal conflict with Toronto’s Bellwoods Brewery over Cowbell’s entitlement to register a bell-themed trademark in Canada.
I reached out to Cowbell for comment, also and Genny Smith, the brewery’s Communications Director, provided this announcement via email: “This matter is in front of the Trademarks Opposition Board, and it would be inappropriate for us to comment on it at this time.”
Source: Beer
Leave a Reply