Jack Daniels Shows How To Write a Cease and Desist Letter 402
NormalVisual writes "When the Jack Daniels distillery recently became aware of a book whose cover they felt substantially infringed their trademark, they didn't go into instant 'Terminator mode' — instead, they wrote a very thoughtful, civil letter to the infringing party, and even offered to help defray the costs of coming into compliance. I believe plenty of other companies (and many in the tech world) could use this as an example of how *not* to alienate people and come off looking like a bunch of greedy jerks."
Re:In the interests of promoting good businesses, (Score:2, Interesting)
Jack Daniels is NOT bourbon... it is a charcoal-filtered Tennessee whiskey. Bourbon comes from Kentucky. They are close, but not the same thing. ...and I will also be buying a bottle tonight.
Re:Classy (Score:2, Interesting)
That's classy.
Why can't more companies act this way towards one another?
It's not profitable (or at least it is not immediately obvious why doing so would be profitable).
The profitability comes from not having to pay their attorneys to sue someone. Lawyers are expensive, probably moreso than graphic designers.
addedbytes.com (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Classy (Score:4, Interesting)
That's classy. Why can't more companies act this way towards one another?
It's not profitable (or at least it is not immediately obvious why doing so would be profitable).
Not profitable? Do you know how many "That's so classy I'm going to buy a bottle just to support them" messages I've read on various blogs? It's not just a cease and desist letter; it is an advertising coup.
Indeed, this is a great example of garnering a positive public image by actually being positive. It's too bad I don't really like their whiskey, or I'd be sure to buy a bottle myself.
Re:Classy (Score:5, Interesting)
There is indeed a chance that the book could be confused with having been produced by Jack Daniels, and that the content reflects the views of the company.
Better than he deserved (Score:5, Interesting)
The Jack Daniel's company's gracious reaction to the abuse of their trade mark is more than the book's publisher deserved. Deliberately ripping-off another company's IPR for a book jacket is not the behaviour of a reputable publisher.
My experience, however, is that book-publishers are meticulous to the point of obsession about ensuring they have all the necessary rights for the cover artwork in place before going to press. This does make me wonder whether this incident is actually a publicity stunt...
Re:Classy (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Happy Drunk Lawyers FTW!! (Score:4, Interesting)
Not according to Little Debbie (Score:5, Interesting)
And as an ex-employee who was unceremoniously downsized, may I say how good it feels to get "Little Doobie" back out there where Google can find it. The self-righteous tards would like nothing better than to have that ugly little incident forgotten. ;-)
Please mod up and help my cause?
No infringement (Score:4, Interesting)
This is a novel. That's about the only thing Jack Daniel's doesn't have a trademark on. Christmas lights and ukuleles, but not novels. JD has no case here, and should not be sending C&D letters to authors, no matter how nicely worded.
According to the USPTO, JD's trademarks are for:
Re:Classy (Score:5, Interesting)
I've seen about a dozen OEM versions of XP become tagged as pirated for no apparent reason at all outside a windows update. In all cases, after about 2 or 3 hours of tracking the original supplier of the software down, I would have to wait 24 hours to get a new product number/key then another day or two to get the license sticker.
In one situation, I lost an account and had to hire a lawyer to stop one confused and irate business lady from going around telling people that I ripped her off by billing for the operating system then installed pirated software instead. Her defense was that Microsoft told her I did that.