HoppingMad
Ein Stein
- Joined
- 26/6/08
- Messages
- 1,474
- Reaction score
- 1
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.
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.
