Brewdog & the over zealous lawyer

Shop deals on ebay
gas guyz
shop deals on amazon
Advertise with us
Australia & New Zealand Homebrewing Forum

Help Support Australia & New Zealand Homebrewing Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
just how i like my satire, biting. "Shopping for Punks" is a good idea though.
 
lawyers only do what their clients tell them to do... what a bunch of ******* just blaming the lawyers
 
laxation said:
lawyers only do what their clients tell them to do... what a bunch of ******* just blaming the lawyers
Click to expand...
Computers only do what people tell them to do, but we blame them for a lot of **** ups.

They probably have a standard corporate agreement for IP and brand control, these kinds of lawyers would be LOOKING for this kind of **** on an ongoing basis.

Really these guys don't know every individual person that works for or ultimately represents the company. They'd have a general business strategy that they would have put in place, that's it...
 
I'm pretty sure the first link is just a joke piece.

But agree with damoninja that they would have a standard agreement with a law firm, and the law firm would go looking for people infringing on their brand. It's unlikely that the actual brew dog boys would be aware of every cease and desist letter sent out on their behalf.
 
I hear Simon & Schuster plans to sue damoninja because his thread sounds to much like the title of one of their childrens story books.
 
I don't think the point is whether the lawyer was directly instructed or not, but rather that Brewdog are massive, dishonest hypocrites who would have evidently agreed to such predatory legalism.
 
'...would have evidently...'

[temporal domain blue screen of death]

[emoji14]
 
klangers said:
I don't think the point is whether the lawyer was directly instructed or not, but rather that Brewdog are massive, dishonest hypocrites who would have evidently agreed to such predatory legalism.
Click to expand...
Zorco said:
'...would have evidently...'

[temporal domain blue screen of death]

[emoji14]
Click to expand...
FIFY
 
klangers said:
I don't think the point is whether the lawyer was directly instructed or not, but rather that Brewdog are massive, dishonest hypocrites who would have evidently agreed to such predatory legalism.
Click to expand...
I work in with a very large team where I govern processes and practices.

Despite me setting them, some people go against them, whether malicious or they believe it's a better way of doing things. I don't agree to them going against best practice nor established processes, but it still happens.

The larger the organisation the more layers this can occur on and the further the direct control from the top down diminishes.

I'm sure these two personally phoned the lawyer and say "Sue! SUE!".
 
Depends on which categories the trademark was registered under. Just because you register a beverage trademark does not mean that it is necessarily illegal to register a business with the same trademark (so long as that business does not manufacture beverages).
 
I'm tipping It's another elaborate Brew Dog Publicity stunt homies, more to come I'll wager.
..then again I am a **** at all things gambling & generally steer clear of it and I'm several HB'd Saison's in and just looking for cyber recognition.
 
Brewdog may have gone " Woops....need an excuse"

Or

They just had a law firm who was generally tasked to look out for infringements and act upon them. Brewdog may have just been lazy and left it to the law firm

Or

They are just CoUNTry folkS
 
Benn said:
I'm tipping It's another elaborate Brew Dog Publicity stunt homies, more to come I'll wager.
..then again I am a **** at all things gambling & generally steer clear of it and I'm several HB'd Saison's in and just looking for cyber recognition.
Click to expand...
Your cyber wings a looking dashing tonight Benn!!
 
damoninja said:
I work in with a very large team where I govern processes and practices.

Despite me setting them, some people go against them, whether malicious or they believe it's a better way of doing things. I don't agree to them going against best practice nor established processes, but it still happens.

The larger the organisation the more layers this can occur on and the further the direct control from the top down diminishes.

I'm sure these two personally phoned the lawyer and say "Sue! SUE!".
Click to expand...
Yes I am aware of how corporations work. I've been chewed up and spat out by the Machine more times that I care to remember.

I personally don't care about "these two"; I care about how the company that they run (which is what it's become) behaves. The fact that Brewdog sells itself as "punk" ie anti-corporate but at the same time carries out Apple-esque legal action is hypocrisy of the highest order.

People on these forums give continual **** to CUB and Lion about selling "fake" craft beer that is less-than-honest, and no-one ever singles out the CEO or other leaders. And rightly so, because company reputations can - and are - judged as a whole. Brewdog has been a large company for a while now, and the/my anger is directed at the whole company. Who made the decision to sue is irrelevant in my view.

But, the buck stops with the leaders and company culture is driven from the top down.

They are human, and humans succumb to greed.
 
Bad PR move by Brewdog. Same happened to Heretic Brewing when Evil Twin Brewing Company first exported beer to the US. Jamil picked up the phone and had a chat, both parties came to a mutual agreement. Should be more of that
 
I guess Stone and Wood shouldn't have challenged Thunder Road for using Pacific Ale then?
 

Latest posts

Back
Top