Patagonia to Anheuser-Busch: This lawsuit’s for you

Thought folks might enjoy a little diversion today:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/04/10/patagonia-anheuser-busch-this-lawsuits-you

That’s weird. I always thought Patagonia was a place.

Marc H wrote: That’s weird. I always thought Patagonia was a place.

Exactly! Lately I’ve been given more and more reasons to not buy Patagonia as of late.

Marc H wrote: That’s weird. I always thought Patagonia was a place.

It is a place, but most Americans don't know that. That's why this will be an interesting trademark case. 

It's not likely that Anheuser-Busch choose this path without first checking with their lawyers.

“Patagonia’s filing states that Anheuser-Busch promoted its new Patagonia beer by setting up booths made of reclaimed wood at Colorado ski resorts where Patagonia’s “ski apparel is widely used and universally recognized.” Sales workers at those booths wore black down jackets featuring the beer’s Patagonia logo, the lawsuit says, while passing out branded gear similar to the products that Patagonia sells “in the very towns where [Anheuser-Busch] has launched its beer.”

Seems like a pretty classless and blantant move by Anheuser-Busch to me. 

LCC kid wrote: “Patagonia’s filing states that Anheuser-Busch promoted its new Patagonia beer by setting up booths made of reclaimed wood at Colorado ski resorts where Patagonia’s “ski apparel is widely used and universally recognized.” Sales workers at those booths wore black down jackets featuring the beer’s Patagonia logo, the lawsuit says, while passing out branded gear similar to the products that Patagonia sells “in the very towns where [Anheuser-Busch] has launched its beer.”

Seems like a pretty classless and blantant move by Anheuser-Busch to me. 

Of course it's classless. These are the people that sell Budweiser.

I'm not a trademark attorney but I'm familiar with some of the principles. Patagonia is a proper name that existed long before the company, and beer is a completely different industry. I think AB has a shot at winning the trademark dispute.

Of course that doesn't mean anybody will actually buy the beer...

This is actually an interesting case; Patagonia is a placename, but at this point more people undoubtedly recognize it as a clothing brand rather than a location.  I'm betting that those shitty brewers at InBev win this one.

It depends who has the best lawyers...

Also depends who wants to make the other look awful and tarnish their image. Patagonia has more to lose. If AB starts to look bad - they will just settle out of court and brush it under the rug. No big deal. That beer isn't their bread and butter. If Patagonia starts to look bad - by being the "bully" - then they will try to pull some environmental angle and look like the good guys again.

Should be a good chess match. Wonder if any of these lawyers studied game theory haha

Sloppy Second wrote: I'm not a trademark attorney but I'm familiar with some of the principles. Patagonia is a proper name that existed long before the company, and beer is a completely different industry. I think AB has a shot at winning the trademark dispute.

You missed that Patagonia sells their own beer. So while normally trademark infringement does not happen when names are used in different industries that is not the case here. So there is likely to be confusion which is a major point in such suits.

As for people wondering about proper names being trademarked. That is SOP. 

The font is different - which can easily be won by AB. Patent law states that something has to be changed by "x percentage from the original"...the mountains on the other hand, I am curious about. It would be like one company using the NYC skyline. It is a common thing and the only thing. You can't use some other ranges "skyline". That part will be good to watch haha

but it will turn into a PR campaign and who can make who look the worst. The cost of loss revenue + cost of lawyers needs to be less than the forecasted beer sales over Y time horizon. Simple math. I think AB will settle out of court to not look like the bully who is picking on an environmentally friendly do good company. Plus the Belgians are little b*tches...they aint from texas and wont go in guns a blazing until the last man stands haha

I always found it amusing that a big outdoor gear company Current Designs would sell a kayak named "Prana". Surprisingly, never heard of any lawsuits related to this matter.
Link to the kayak - ​Current Designs Prana​​​

amarius wrote: I always found it amusing that a big outdoor gear company Current Designs would sell a kayak named "Prana". Surprisingly, never heard of any lawsuits related to this matter.
Link to the kayak - Current Designs Prana

Pranayama is the formal practice of controlling the breath, which is the source of our prana, or vital life force.

So the clothing company, and kayak company are just using a word borrowed from Yoga, and no-one is going to accidentally confuse the two.

The crux of the suit is that the marketing materials and strategy (environmental causes) for AB's beer align with Patagonia's (clothing) established brand. If it were just a beer name, there probably wouldn't be much of a case, but the brand they are promoting around the beer named "Patagonia", shares similar values with the established clothing brand, Patagonia; therein lies the basis for consumer confusion. If courts think a reasonable consumer would be confused by this, it's reasonable to say that Patagonia clothing could win out.

Allen Sanderson wrote: You missed that Patagonia sells their own beer. So while normally trademark infringement does not happen when names are used in different industries that is not the case here. So there is likely to be confusion which is a major point in such suits.

As for people wondering about proper names being trademarked. That is SOP. 

And AB had trademarked the name four years before Patagonia started selling their beer. AB could easily argue that Patagonia was the one being sleazy: Why did a relatively small clothing company start selling beer using the trademark of a major national brand?

Proper names can be trademarked, but the scope is usually more limited when a proper name is used. Also, there are likely multiple trademarks involved with different scopes. The logo, name, etc. The name likely has a very limited scope (a quick search of the trademark database shows that there are 222 trademarks with the word Patagonia, and several that are simply the one word "Patagonia" including a dog food and a barbecue company.)

There are lots of twists in this story.

Also, this is the most interesting beer lawsuit since West 6th Brewing v. Magic Hat #9, where they got into an argument over how "6" looks just like an "upside down 9."  Haha!

Sloppy Second wrote:
And AB had trademarked the name four years before Patagonia started selling their beer. AB could easily argue that Patagonia was the one being sleazy: Why did a relatively small clothing company start selling beer using the trademark of a major national brand?

Did you read the article?? Patagonia Provisions does not use "Patagonia" in their beer name, which is Long Root Beer. Their Patagonia mountain logo is on the beer label. That said, the quote that AB “fraudulently obtained” the trademark is interesting as it sounds like AB registered the name but then did not use it in a timely fashion.

I've been skiing on days when they had those promotions.  I was genuinely confused: along the lines of "well the logo isn't really right, but it kinda looks similar, and the branding involves beer, games, and open-pit fire all kind of feels like something Patagonia could put together for some reason..."  

Is this a troll? I’m not sure there are any real climbers here: This post has been up 17 whole hours and NO ONE appears to have consumed and assessed the BEER! Where are your priorities?! I’ll let all you legal beagles continue to spew while I track down the brew. ;)
Climb on!

Marc H wrote: That’s weird. I always thought Patagonia was a place.

They named it after the jackets.  Epic licensing deal. 

This is actually going to be pretty interesting, because AB's signature product is Budweiser--a beer that's basically named after a region in the Czech Republic*. AB and the Czech company that's actually from the region which also brews a beer called Budweiser have been litigating on and off for the better part of 100 years. AB is absolutely no stranger to this issue, and it's going to be pretty damn funny when Patagonia's lawyers bring up AB's countless legal arguments that companies should be able to copyright the names of regions of foreign countries so they can protect their brand.

*It's only sort of "named after" though; anything from that region ("Budweis") is considered "Budweiser" so calling your beer "Budweiser" is like calling your beer "Patagonian" or "American" as a proper noun. 

Pnelson wrote: Also, this is the most interesting beer lawsuit since West 6th Brewing v. Magic Hat #9, where they got into an argument over how "6" looks just like an "upside down 9."  Haha!

You should check out the Budvar/Budweiser lawsuit. "Beer of Kings" versus the "King of Beers."  Although it's been going on for decades, the best par is that they are both held by InBev.