Reasonable use of IP law

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Greig McGill on August 13, 2011 at 9:18am

I'm with Mr 6 on this one. Dom, I totally understand your motivations for doing this. It seems to boil down to "it's a dirty game, so I'll have to play by those dirty rules". I also see your point about $100 worth of insurance, and it's perfectly rational. My idealist side says that it would be better to take the high road though and not register such a TM - a name can be clever, but I'm not convinced it can be innovative. My idealist side is a bit of a wanker though, especially when he's had a few radlers.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dominic Kelly on August 13, 2011 at 10:52am

I think you're getting carried away with the innovation side. If we invent a better mousetrap we can go and patent it. This is a trademark discussion and just about the originality of our name and whether it is sufficiently distinctive that someone else might unfairly exploit or spoil it at a later date, and also whether we have a right to lay claim to a phrase.

And sorry but one thing that separates us from apes is the ability to take existing words and create phrases with additional or nuanced meaning, so please don't dismiss "three common words" as if only made up words count. Here are some recently registered trademarks: "Superheroes of the Accounting World", "The Amazing Travelling Photobooth" and "The Bacon Buttie Man". All phrases made of reasonably common words so by 6's logic they are invalid too, but they seem pretty fair to me.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Doublehoppy on August 13, 2011 at 11:00pm

The Pacific's a bloody big place...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Simon Smith on August 16, 2011 at 2:23pm

I can't see how organising 3 words in a particular order, that others haven't done before, is not innovative... but most importantly to me, a trademark is not about innovation. Copyright and patents I don't support, but trademarks are a way of letting consumers know they are getting what they think they are. All this would mean is that others can't call their beer festival, in New Zealand, the 'Pacific Beer Expo.' There is no limitation on creating your own expo, and even copying the general theme of the Pacific Beer Expo... all you need to do is come up with your own name.

 

I would hate to see a bad application by DB, and decision by IPONZ, to reduce the value to consumers that a trademark can have. In terms of a Pacific Beer Expo, I could be sure if I attend it would be a great event as I know Dominic will be involved and I respect his judgement. The inverse is true of the Radler trademark debacle, in that if I was buying something called Radler I would expect it to be a Radler... and not some decidedly average lager with a squirt of lemon lime dishwash liquid added at bottling (at least, that's how I assume they make it).

 

Short version: Fully support of the idea of trademarking the name of a beer expo, both to protect the investment of the organisers and to let me as a consumer know that I am getting what I expect. Don't support the granting of trademarks that are misleading.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Greig McGill on August 16, 2011 at 5:00pm

Yep, I've thought a lot about this and agree 100%. Nicely stated Simon.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DP on August 14, 2011 at 1:09am

Would I be infringing the trademark if I were to, say, organise a tour of the breweries of Japan, Australia, NZ and the US calling it the "Pacific Beer Expedition"?

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page