Photo Courtesy of Ann Richardson |
Sutton's alcoholic beverage is named after a famous moonshiner Marvin "Popcorn" Sutton.
Sutton, known for his long gray beard and overalls, committed suicide by carbon monoxide poisoning in
2009 rather than go to prison for violating alcohol manufacturing laws. According to Wikipedia, Sutton received his "Popcorn" nickname after damaging a bar's faulty popcorn vending machine with a pool cue in the 1960's.
Jack
Daniel's, produced in Lynchburg, Tennessee, filed the suit in federal district
court in Nashville, alleging that the Defendants' use of a square bottle is
likely to cause confusion among consumers.
The Complaint further alleges that the Jack Daniel's square bottle has been "a consistent commercial impression" for decades. That packaging is part of "one of the oldest, longest-selling and most iconic consumer products" in U.S. history, the Complaint alleges.
Jack
Daniel's specifically describes its claimed "Trade Dress" as a "combination
of a square-shaped bottle with angled shoulders that house a raised signature
on four sides, and beveled corners, and labeling with a white on black color
scheme and filigree designs."
While Jack Daniel's does not own a federally registered trademark on the square bottle shape standing alone, it does own a trademark for the labeling elements of its claimed "Trade Dress."
The Defendants' website which had been advertising the
accused whiskey appears to have been shut down, possibly in response to
the filing of the lawsuit.
While Jack Daniel's does not own a federally registered trademark on the square bottle shape standing alone, it does own a trademark for the labeling elements of its claimed "Trade Dress."
Trade dress lawsuits involving alcohol bottle shapes are rare, but not unheard of. For example, in 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's dismissal of a case involving a skull-shaped vodka bottle. In that case, the Court noted that the shape of a skull for a bottle was purely ornamental, served no functional purpose whatsoever and may have garnered sufficient secondary meaning among the consuming public to be identified with its producer. Further, the Appeals Court noted the availability of many alternative designs to competitors.
No comments:
Post a Comment