Thunder Rd Goes After The Big Boys

[bum]

I think it maybe that he has a passion for beer history!

History still exists regardless of how this court thing works out, though.

I'll put my point into another context. I really like James Joyces' Ulysses (as distasteful as it may be to declare it). The author first published the work over 90 years ago - how would it be any different for me to try to get it into public domain prematurely via the legal system?

Another example: The guys behind Spinal Tap do (although may not for much longer, if you're following the news) the same thing. They do some weak-arse commercial work in character every three years in order to hold on to the copyright. Would it be ******** for me to take them to court over that so I could put out some "Spinal Tap" material?

Not doubting the brewer's intentions here - I'm sure he means every word. But what would stop him from putting out some "traditional" Australian beer (whatever he thinks that means) under another name? Nothing, that's what. He stole someone else's idea for his brewery name and now he wants someone else to name his beers. He needs a marketing department not a legal department.

[EDIT: typo]

 

[Murcluf]

Are they trying to remove the trademark so the beers are available to everyone or just so they can brew them themselves?

My limited understanding from that limited article is that 'winning' the court case won't mean transferral of the TM etc to Thunder Road - just that SAB Miller won't be able to hang onto it exclusively.

Public domain.

I'd have to agree here, as the article only talk about the names not about the actual beers. I get no indication that Thunder Road have any intention of actually brewing of these beers. As the recipes if still available would be more about IP rather then TM. Without IP/recipe you'd be only guessing what these pre War beers were like, not reproducing the original beers.

 

[Fourstar]

There is effectively no difference between what this guy is trying to do, and what Fosters/Lion Nathan do with BUL.
BUL beers are brand names, and nothing more. I don't understand why this guy is even bothering trying to unearth brands that will mean nothing to most beer drinkers, but for CUB to say what they did is hypocrisy at its finest.

This is not anything like a BUL project. BUL is contracting a 3rd party to produce their product in another geographical location to ensure the quality and cost of their product is available globally and is not compromised by the effect of shipping their product 1/2 way around the globe. There is no reference here that CUB would ever entertain the idea of someone else producing one of these product under its name either.

The whole issue i have is its about taking trade marks, rightfully owned by CUB upon the formation of the organisation and taking these product name away from them. For what exactly? Some cowboy feels that they don't deserve to hold onto their historical identity? Give me a break. Its effectively sealing someone's history and telling them they no longer have the right up uphold their heritage and produce.

I'm sure in 50 years time if Thunder Road still exist and no longer produce their coveted "Pale Lager" they wouldn't want others doing the same. I guarantee it.

In all honesty, can anyone work out why Thunder Road is preferring to put money into this instead of developing good beers of their own?
Not saying they don't have any good beers but if they want more beers then money will help with that.

This is the real question i have. All i have ever seen is smoke and mirrors with these guys. For an organisation trying to look like the Stone Brewing equivalent for Australia, their doing a pretty average job of it so far.

 

[kevin_smevin]

This is not anything like a BUL project. BUL is contracting a 3rd party to produce their product in another geographical location to ensure the quality and cost of their product is available globally and is not compromised by the effect of shipping their product 1/2 way around the globe. There is no reference here that CUB would ever entertain the idea of someone else producing one of these product under its name either.

The whole issue i have is its about taking trade marks, rightfully owned by CUB upon the formation of the organisation and taking these product name away from them. For what exactly? Some cowboy feels that they don't deserve to hold onto their historical identity? Give me a break. Its effectively sealing someone's history and telling them they no longer have the right up uphold their heritage and produce.

I'm sure in 50 years time if Thunder Road still exist and no longer produce their coveted "Pale Lager" they wouldn't want others doing the same. I guarantee it.




This is the real question i have. All i have ever seen is smoke and mirrors with these guys. For an organisation trying to look like the Stone Brewing equivalent for Australia, their doing a pretty average job of it so far.

I dont know much about Stone Brewing's philosophy but a quick look at their beers makes me think their philosophy is very different. Thunder road are trying to gain a share of the big boys markets by producing approachable beers that are fresh and tasty all malt etc

 

[Fourstar]

I dont know much about Stone Brewing's philosophy but a quick look at their beers makes me think their philosophy is very different. Thunder road are trying to gain a share of the big boys markets by producing approachable beers that are fresh and tasty all malt etc

I'm taking about the underlying 'i don't give a **** what anyone thinks' arrogant bastard brand approach they have seem to have had since day dot. (Not all stones products/enterprises follow this philosophy).

 

[kevin_smevin]

I'm taking about the underlying 'i don't give a **** what anyone thinks' arrogant bastard brand approach they have seem to have had since day dot. (Not all stones products/enterprises follow this philosophy).

Fair enough. That's certainly not their philosophy but i can definitely understand how they come across that way

 

[lukiep8]

This is not anything like a BUL project. BUL is contracting a 3rd party to produce their product in another geographical location to ensure the quality and cost of their product is available globally and is not compromised by the effect of shipping their product 1/2 way around the globe.

That is indeed what a BUL project is supposed to be.

Which is why called what Fosters/Swan/Coopers/etc. BUL is technically wrong. They are not the same recipes. I believe Coca Cola event admitted to it when they lost their SABMiller contracts.

 

[Fourstar]

That is indeed what a BUL project is supposed to be.

Which is why called what Fosters/Swan/Coopers/etc. BUL is technically wrong. They are not the same recipes. I believe Coca Cola event admitted to it when they lost their SABMiller contracts.

:blink: news to me

 

[kenlock]

What would be great is that CUB brewed these beers and put them on tap on places they owned. Why not create CUB Taverns (with the pubs they already own) branded against James Squire Ale Houses, etc.

The new world is about choice, price and accessibility. If you can't accommodate these fundamentals then you are unlikely to succeed and/or survive.

My $0.02
:icon_cheers:

 

[Charst]

What would be great is that CUB brewed these beers and put them on tap on places they owned. Why not create CUB Taverns (with the pubs they already own) branded against James Squire Ale Houses, etc.

The new world is about choice, price and accessibility. If you can't accommodate these fundamentals then you are unlikely to succeed and/or survive.

My $0.02
:icon_cheers:

Solid idea, if CUB had a pub in the city brewing all their historical beers, to recipe, not generic 2012 Aussie lagers with ballarat bertie slapped on the can, Id be dragging my mega swill mates in. I had a McCrackens recipe re creation at Young and jacksons years ago and it was delicious toffee amber ale

But having said that they may not want to highlight how much they have changed wants supposed to be traditional recipes. or how sh*t their beer taste compared to how it used to.

 

[HoppingMad]

Hypothetical one:
Reading a related article in Beer and Brewer it sounds like they have a good UK-style beer recipe from an 1800s brewlog previously brewed by CUB. I'm sure they would love to mention the origin of the beer on the back of the label (ie. Brewed to old Ballarat Bitter/McCrackens recipe etc), but legally they would be in a situation where they can't mention or use a trademark held by another company without paying for it - and that might be the issue.

Hypothetical two:
It's interesting to note that Thunder Road have only just trademarked Brunswick Bitter themselves when you do an ATMOSS search at ipaustralia website - and the decision on that is under examination and pending. Another angle is they may simply have been in the process of trademarking their beers and seen how many underused trademarks CUB held, and decided to shake the tree.

Hypothetical three:
Last hypothetical is purely to seek free publicity. Taking CUB to court would be expensive, but make some news, then withdraw your claim and you get known for something, and it costs you very little. Might be cheaper than running a few ads.

Any of these and others that have been mentioned are probable. But who knows? Will certainly be interesting to see how this one pans out.

Hopper.