Jack Daniels Shows How To Write a Cease and Desist Letter

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."

Classy

[rwise2112]

That's classy.
Why can't more companies act this way towards one another?

One Word

[zblack_eagle]

Why can't more companies act this way towards one another?

Sociopaths

Re:One Word

[Forty Two Tenfold]

Sociopaths

Maybe, or maybe just immature butthurt jerks.

Working link

[satanclause]

http://www.businessinsider.com/jack-daniels-wrote-what-has-to-be-the-nicest-cease-and-desist-order-of-all-time-2012-7 [businessinsider.com]

Re:One Word

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct. The Average American Corporation(tm) has qualities that strongly resemble (in overlapping ways) Schitzophrenia, Sociopathy, and Psychopathy. The all consuming greed, the complete and utter disregard for others, the complete narcissism. Clearly JD is not a member of "The Average American Corporation(tm)". Now business schools teach businesses and business people to behave in antisocial, psychotic, sociopathic and narcisistic ways, so its not a random accident. Its not just the corporations that are a destructive force on American Society, its the business schools too.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[TheGratefulNet]

yeah, sure; when I think of friendly, open, accepting and neighborly, I *always* think of the south. yup, they are sure the bastion of tolerance. not homo-phobic, not anti-progressive, not racially motivated at all. nope. I always think of the south as such a welcoming and friendly place to be.

(rolls eyes)

Re:

[toQDuj]

OT, but this is the first time I have seen "veneer" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood_veneer [wikipedia.org] spelled as "vernier" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernier_scale [wikipedia.org]
Other than that, your message came across fine :).

Re:Classy

[SJHillman]

I would like to propose new legislation in which every time you file a lawsuit for patent, copyright or trademark infringement, you must send a bottle of a nice bourbon to the defendant.

Re:Classy

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to be an ass sir, but I've notice you've advocated sending a bottle of nice bourbon along with a lawsuit. I agree with the sentiment, but most note a concern on execution.

Pedantry IMO is a worse sin than you have committed. However, I must point out that although a fine product Jack Daniels is Tennessee Whiskey and not to be confused with Bourbon that elixir of the gods distilled in Kentucky.

     

Re:

[DeathElk]

Gimme the Jack charcoal filter smoothness over Jim throat sandpaper any day of the week, any hour of the day.

Re:Classy

[_anomaly_]

I'd take Jack over Jim, too, but Jim is by no means representative of what good bourbon is.

Try Woodford, any Pappy Van Winkle, Baker's, Booker's, Blanton's... the list of good bourbons isn't short. And, if you're going to cry foul because of price differential between Jack and those I listed, try Bulleit bourbon, one of my personal favorites.

Re:Classy

[redneckmother]

Jim Beam is actually really shitty bourbon and a bad drink all-around.

Why do 9 out of 10 Southern Baptist preachers drink Jim Beam?

Because the square bottle won't roll out from under the seat.

Re:

[X0563511]

Irish or Scotch whiskey or no whiskey.

Re:Classy

[pkuyken]

Irish or Scotch whiskey or no whiskey.

I think you meant to say "Scotch whisky".

Re:Classy

[azalin]

I would like to propose new legislation in which every time you file a lawsuit for patent, copyright or trademark infringement, you must send a bottle of a nice bourbon to the defendant.

Wouldn't that actually encourage infringing?

Anyway it is nice to see that some people defend their trademark without acting like a douche about it. While I'm not a huge fan of their product or bourbon in general (Scottish single malts for me), I really like their way of doing business.
Well done and please enjoy the free publicity, you earned it.

Re:Classy

[RMingin]

Whiskey = Tennessee
Bourbon = Kentucky
Whisky = Scotland, exemplar of the format.

Re:

[RMingin]

For every rule, there's someone ignoring it.

Re:Classy

[_anomaly_]

I was going to provide links to government definitions and such, but I figured it'd just be easier to quote their own website:

"Jack Daniel's is not a bourbon - it's a Tennessee Whiskey."

http://www.jackdaniels.com/faqs [jackdaniels.com]

It's the extra filtering step, the "Lincoln County Process", that excludes it from being a bourbon.

Re:

[Killjoy_NL]

If it is a good drink, I don't really care what it's called, a rose by any other name and all that :)

Re:

[nullchar]

Sometimes you don't want the peaty finish of scotch.

Re:Classy

[betterunixthanunix]

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).

Re:Classy

[camperdave]

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.

Re:

[betterunixthanunix]

Sure, but Jack Daniels has worked for decades to build that image (probably to overcome the "outlaw redneck" image that comes to mind); how would a company like Microsoft pull this off?

Re:

[houstonbofh]

Sure, but Jack Daniels has worked for decades to build that image (probably to overcome the "outlaw redneck" image that comes to mind); how would a company like Microsoft pull this off?

Actually, if Microsoft did this it would be even more newsworthy. And they can use all the good will they can get.

Re:Classy

[rezalas]

Microsoft provides free updates to their OS even if you're using a copy they know is pirated. I'd say that has a bit of good will to it, especially since most people just get a "you may be a victim of piracy" warning and a black desktop background. When it comes to being polite to people who pirate or infringe on your work, MS isn't exactly slashing throats.

Re:

[IrquiM]

I've seen so many people claiming that MS tags their legal software as pirated that I think MS is just doing this to avoid the problems.

Re:Classy

[sumdumass]

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.

Re:Classy

[rezalas]

So you had multiple copies flagged as unlicensed or as invalidly licensed, and they gave multiple warnings that the issue existed so you could fix the problem but your employees failed to notify you, and somehow that is MS being a dick? After that they help you fix the problem by giving you new CD keys and appologizing to you, and they still aren't nice to pirates? That makes no sense at all. Also, considering you started by saying it was half a dozen machines and followed it up by saying "most of our computers" I'll bet you're a small business which means they didn't exactly apologize because they had to, they did it because it was the right thing to do.

It seems to me that they were pretty damn fair the whole time.

Re:

[Sprouticus]

JD isn't being nice either. They are being POLITE and RESPECTFUL. There is a difference.

Nice would be 'sure you can use our branding for your book, we explicitly give you license. for free.

THAT would be nice.

Re:Classy

[kilfarsnar]

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

[Ixokai]

There's nothing wrong about it. Trademarks require enforcement or you lose them. They aren't copyright, "fair use" as copyright defines does not apply.

Re:Classy

[somarilnos]

The fact that they're asking isn't wrong - the fact that they're asking is forced. If you own a trademark, and you don't defend it when it's infringed upon, you run the risk of losing that trademark. That means that if they let this go without so much as a letter, then John Danielson's Alabama Whiskey can use an identical looking bottle (except for the name) and put it on store shelves, and Jack Daniels would be unable to legally stop them. That's why they're doing this - the fact that they approached it without threatening, with offers to help, and the like, is very courteous, and really unheard of in today's society. Kudos here to Jack Daniels.

Re:Classy

[stretch0611]

It is not a question of censorship. If you own a trademark and fail to enforce it, you risk losing that trademark. If Jack Daniels did nothing to this author, a few years down the road a competitor could theoretically sell a whiskey bottle with a similar design.

They are not trying to ban the book and even did the nice thing of offering to help pay to redesign the cover. They are doing no more then protecting their trademark and are trying to help the book's author come into compliance instead of sending the lawyers after him.

Re:Classy

[Roujo]

Copyright and trademark are two different beasts. Copyright allows you to control who gets the right to copy your work. As such, you can give out licenses, for free or for a fee, since its purpose is exactly that: being able to profit from your work. Whether aggressive copyright enforcement is the best way to do that is a whole other story. =P

The purpose of trademark is not the same at all. Trademarks are used to protect a brand's image. They are issued to prevent brand dilution (the brand becoming a generic term, as happened with Kleenex) and brand confusion (somebody else passing a lesser product as a better known brand, hurting the latter's reputation). Because the intent of a trademark is to preserve the uniqueness your brand, you are not allowed to knowingly let someone else use it. If you did, it would weaken any later trademark claims you made since you'd have permitted others to make your brand less unique. This is why Jack Daniel's says they are forced to send the cease and desist letter.

Regarding whether this is an American thing or not, I do not know. I think it also applies here in Canada, but then again IANAL so I can't say for sure. =)

I hope this helped!

Re:Classy

[gman003]

I see you've been reading too many /. comments, and now assume any enforcement of IP laws is an evil only slightly less than the Holocaust.

"Intellectual property" laws (patent, copyright, and trademark) exist for a reason. The fact that they are heavily abused does not mean that every enforcement of them is invalid. There are millions of valid uses.

In this case, it seems to be one of the increasingly-rare cases of the law being used properly. The book rather clearly copies the trademarked style of JD. It does not have any obvious fair use exemption - it's not being used to reference JD itself (nominative fair use), it's not a parody. It is someone using another's branding apparently either out of laziness, or deliberate deception (most likely the former, but I can't rule out the latter).

It's not censorship. They aren't trying to get the book withdrawn, or removed (which they definitely would, if they were trying to censor the book). The cover has nothing worth censoring - it's just the title and other basic metadata. The only "artistic expression" they're trying to control is their own - the art of their trademark.

Re:Classy

[gman003]

That does not (IIRC, IANAL, STFU) apply to brand stylings. You can write a book called "Jack Daniels", you can make a TV show called "Jack Daniels", but you can't use the branding style of the Jack Daniel's trademark on them. It's the same reason why you can get sued for using a Superman-esque logo.

Re:

[Belial6]

Plus the "40% Alcohol by Volume" printed at the bottom is a pretty clear indication that they are intentionally trying to look like Alcohol, and not just "Old Western". Trademark is the one form of "IP" that really is needed, and helpful to both the seller and the buyer. JD really did handle this in the best way possible. While they technically could have authorized the use of the image for the book, we don't know if the book is any good. It wouldn't have been very neighborly to have told him that the b

Re:Classy

[CohibaVancouver]

I don't like Jack Danuals ether

Drinking ether? I see your problem right there.

Re:Classy

[Belial6]

It is the Anti-Streisand.

Re:

[Beerdood]

True, this is certainly helping their image, but the reasons are different that what's expected. Whoever received that cease and desist letter didn't have to post the letter from JD, but they did (I really doubt JD expected this kind of response and feedback). If it's profitable because of positive feedback from the response of this letter (because people choose to buy JD now after reading this) then it's unintentional, which is the noticeable difference here. The motives appear to be something resemblin

Re:Classy

[Blue23]

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.

Someone at Jack Daniel's has heard of the Streisand Effect, and is doing a good understanding what it means.

Is this good business sense? Abso-freaking-lutely. For exactly the reasons you state. They couldn't pay for a marketing campaign that would generate this much good will this quick. Certainly if they tried it would be orders of magnitude more than offering to help him design a new cover.

I'm not saying they're doing it manipulatively. I'm saying it's very possible for a corporation to act well and in doing so still "enhance shareholder value" or whatever.

Cheers, good job JD! You show class.

Re:Classy

[realityimpaired]

It's not profitable (or at least it is not immediately obvious why doing so would be profitable).

Well... not sure how they're advertising their product in the states, but here in Canada their current ad campaign is all about their history, and trying to set themselves up as a friend of the family. The publicity that a "fuck off and die" C&D letter could create has the potential destroy that ad campaign.

The good will and good publicity that this letter has created, on the other hand, almost certainly helps the image they're trying to foster for their product.

Re:Classy

[betterunixthanunix]

Yes, but the question was why other companies are not like this, and the answer is that for most companies, it is not clear that doing this would be competitive or profitable. Jack Daniels has been working very hard to make themselves seem classy, because they want to compete with high end bourbon and scotch brands (I don't think they have a chance if they continue to make whiskey their traditional way). Most companies are not marketing themselves as "classy," because it would not be profitable for them to do so in the first place -- who wants a "classy lawnmower" or a "classy backhoe?"

Re:Classy

[scandalon]

I don't want a "classy lawnmower" or a "classy backhoe", but I'd buy one from a company who demonstrated classy behavior over a competitor who did not.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Classy

[TheCarp]

I was just thinking same thing from the opposite direction.

Most C&D letters are written by the lawyers. What incentive does a lawyer have to be non-combatitive?

If he is combatative it makes him look good to the people he is representing, and doesn't risk having them question whether he is really doing his job. If he is non-combatative, like this, then that doesn't make more work for him either.

If it leads to a huge battle, the company isn't going to blame the lawyer for being to combative, since he is just fighting for them. If it looks soft or like it isn't going to be effective, they are going to blame him.

Its true, that on a deeper analsys this is probably the better way to go... that doesn't mean that every cog in the wheel making decisions is making that deeper analsys. When the legal department gets notice of infingement, they have one hammer, and you know what that tends to make all problems look like.

Re:Classy

[Neil_Brown]

What incentive does a lawyer have to be non-combatitive?

Preserving the company's brand, and likely closing down the issue quickly and efficiently, potentially even winning an advocate of the brand in the process?

If it leads to a huge battle, the company isn't going to blame the lawyer for being to combative, since he is just fighting for them.

If you've got a lawyer who can only litigate, I'd have thought you have a liability on your hands — far better someone who can assess the commercial implications along with the law, and come up with a sensible plan. If you want to reach a conclusion quickly and easily, litigation is perhaps the worst, and most expensive, way to go.

Re:

[Firethorn]

'not immediately obvious' is right. It's kind of like how lawyers have been telling us, for decades, 'don't apologize, it might open you up to liability in a lawsuit!!!'. When they finally do a study, they find that apologizing, especially with an honest attempt to make it right, virtually eliminates lawsuits, and even if it goes to trial, the apology and offer of (reasponable) compensation tends to keep the awards down.

Of course, my point would be - why would it be in a lawyer's best interest to reduce t

Re:Classy

[SkimTony]

The lawyers I know tend to hate litigation. It's a lot more work for less return than "sensible" negotiation.
Lawyers who actually work for a company (as opposed to firms where they're contracting out) are also a bit like sysadmins; they have plenty of work on their plates just keeping ahead of the day to day stuff, and a big lawsuit would be like throwing a big upgrade project at them; if it can be avoided without risk to the business, it will be avoided.

Re:Classy

[localman57]

That's classy. Why can't more companies act this way towards one another?

It may well be the entire industry that acts that way. A couple of years ago I was at a tasting event with the either Grandson or Great Grandson of Jim Beam, and he was the same way. He had great things to say about all of his Kentucky competitors' products. I think their view of things is to promote Kentucky Burbon, not just their own label. A rising tide lifts all ships kind of thing.

Re:Classy

[RaceProUK]

That's probably because he's a member of the sub-species 'Homo sapiens pleasentus', rather than the parasitic 'Homo sapiens legalitus' aka lawyer.

Whiskey people can be a nice bunch of folks...

[novapyro]

It may well be the entire industry that acts that way. A couple of years ago I was at a tasting event with the either Grandson or Great Grandson of Jim Beam, and he was the same way. .

You're probably talking about Fred Noe III. Yep, he's a nice guy. As is Bill Samuels Jr. over at Maker's Mark. If you take a distillery tour here in Kentucky or attend a tasting at a Derby party or the Bourbon Festival, you might run into these guys. Or one of the many other storied distillers. To see Jack Daniels distillery, of course, you'll have to go to Tennessee. Even though the brand is now owned by a Kentucky company, (Brown-Forman) they are still most definitely a Tennessee whiskey.

For a little bit more about the whiskey business, check out this photo book at the author's website:
http://www.leonhowlett.com/kentuckybourbonexperience/ [leonhowlett.com]
or at amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Kentucky-Bourbon-Experience-Kentuckys-Distilleries/dp/1935001817 [amazon.com]
Or just go visit a distillery.

Disclaimer: I know the author, but don't receive any compensation for the book. I just think it's a beautiful book.

Re:Classy

[habig]

Why can't more companies act this way towards one another?

A cynical take on why lawyers don't usually act like this: the purpose of law and lawyers is to resolve conflicts. By doing so in a jerky way, they ensure more future conflicts, ergo, job security.

That said, these guys resolved this conflict in the best way possible, kudos to them: hope they don't get disbarred for it or anything!

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Too many people grew up watching Apple sue everybody, never thinking Apple was doing it wrong.

Re:

[bws111]

Trademarks are supposed to prevent consumers from being confused as to the source of a product. There is no chance someone who is looking to buy a bottle of whiskey is going to be duped into buying a book instead. This supposedly 'classy' move is nothing more than an attempt to sweet-talk the guy into changing something that no court would order him to change.

Re:Classy

[mooingyak]

Jack Daniels produces other items as well, such as t-shirts with their logo on them. The book could easily be mistaken as a product of the company.

Re:

[MaskedSlacker]

As opposed to bullying him and threatening him with the ruinous legal fees he would have to pay to get the court to rule in his favour? Yeah, I'll take this. A step in the right direction is a GOOD thing, even if it's only part of the way there.

Re:

[RobertLTux]

and TGIFridays has a whole LINE of JD stuff (mostly with said BBQ sauce)

oh and yes there are a few JD cookbooks http://www.amazon.com/Jack-Daniels-Spirit-Tennessee-Cookbook/dp/1595553010/ref=pd_sim_b_1 [amazon.com]
so yes there is an issue with a book

Re:

[__aaeihw9960]

What's that thing about having cake and eating it too. . . . Realistically, trademark and intellectual property aren't going away anytime soon. So, would you rather have letters and processes like this, or would you just like to skip to the lawsuits at the drop of a hat?

Re:Classy

[SirGarlon]

Unfortunately, no. Failure to enforce a trademark does weaken it. I am not a lawyer but here's a Web page by someone who is: http://www.ggmark.com/protect.html#Maintenance [ggmark.com]

It's not that consumers are apt to confuse the book with the whiskey. It's that Jack Daniel's failure to respond would be taken as evidence by a future trademark court that they don't care who uses their logo or for what purpose.

Re:Classy

[Volante3192]

http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85129461 [uspto.gov]
Looks to me like it's a valid trademark.

Maybe you're confused as to what a trademark is?

Re:Classy

[operagost]

Many companies, including Jack Daniels, produce products other than their flagship product. For example, JD sells promotional items like T shirts and barbecue sauce. By your standard, other companies could sell these items as well because they're not whiskey. The confusion lies in the identity of the manufacturer, not the product itself. Imagine if a different company had decided to sell "Jack Daniels Barbecue Sauce" and accidentally poisoned a bunch of people. Now you see why a trademark is a historically valuable thing to protect. It has a purpose.

Re:

[FrangoAssado]

You're talking about direct infringement, but that's not the only thing a trademark owner has to worry about. From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:

In most cases, trademark dilution involves an unauthorized use of another's trademark on products that do not compete with, and have little connection with, those of the trademark owner. For example, a famous trademark used by one company to refer to hair care products might be diluted if another company began using a similar mark to refer to breakfast cereals or spark plugs.

Re:Classy

[RaceProUK]

Apart from guarding against potential misuse of their trademark design, that is.

The book may not technically be infringing, but it's close enough that JD had to do something. At least they had the decency to say 'We like what you did, but unfortunately we have to request you change it. We'll even help with the cost.', instead of the more usual 'Remove it last year of we'll sue for a kajillion dollars every second you don't comply!!!!1'.

Re:Classy

[Ixokai]

Trademarks do not leave open the option of just letting it go; they /have/ to be enforced, or the claim weakens and sooner or later the company gets into court on a real, *major* violation and the mark is ruled abandoned.

JD makes more then just whiskey. They make all kinds of merchandise that is related to their core business, all under the same brand umbrella, all under the same image. No one would confuse his book for a bottle of whiskey, but they may confuse it for some official JD-endorsed publication. Is that very likely? Hard to say.

However, JD is _required_ to enforce their trademark or they *lose* it.

Re:Classy

[SJHillman]

It could be mistaken as being an official JD product. I assume JD sells merchandise (including books of some sort) in addition to the drinks themselves.

Re:Classy

[jedidiah]

They simply can't do this. This is the one area of intellectual property where they simply cannot mind their own business. This is mentioned in the letter and is done so in a very civil matter.

They can't just "ignore this and hope it will go away".

Re:

[fast turtle]

Due to the sometimes crazy way Trademarks are purchased (yes they're purchased based on industries) a company by law protect their trademark or they loose it. Read up on Xerox and Trademark Dilution, it'll tell you a lot about how crazy trademark law can be.

In this case, I have to agree with the others and offer another "Well Done" to the Jack Daniels Lawyers who didn't go overboard on the trademark issue. Hell this is the first I've even heard of a company offering to help someone avoid infringing, which i

Re:Classy

[bondsbw]

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.

Re:

[vlm]

Classy would have been minding their own business. There is no chance of Wensink's book being mistaken for a bottle of Jack Daniels, and therefore there is no trademark infringement or dilution.

Classy, or at least very funny, would have been peeling the "real label" off a bottle of jack, and pasting a color photocopy of the dudes book cover on the bottle, shipping it to the author, and asking him what he thinks of the situation now that the tables are turned on him. That would have been intensely LOL-worthy.

Its appropriate to protect trademarks. I don't think you'd find it very amusing if I started wearing a tee shirt with a logo of "My name is Hatta (162192)". Most paid by the hour lawyers te

Re:Classy

[Sentrion]

1. Companies don't just have the option of defending their trademarks, they have the DUTY to defend their trademarks or lose the right to those trademarks. Of course nobody is going to presume that a book is a bottle of Jack Daniels, but the design of the cover is clearly recognizable as the Jack Daniels design, even referencing "40% ALC. BY VOL." Having your trademark used by other people and companies could set a track record of not defending your trademark, which would mean that more people could use your trademark and with so many examples of others being allowed to do it you might not be able to stop anybody from using in the future. So if someone used the trademark and wrote a book that advocated giving alcohol to children it could become a real liability for Jack Daniels, both in the court of law and the court of public opinion, which could really affect a companies ability to sell and market their product.

2. Jack Daniels also does license their trademarks to other companies, such a Friday's restaurants that serve the Jack Daniel's grilled meals, and there are also cookbooks that have agreements with Jack Daniels to use the trademark. So sub-licensing their own trademark is a profitable side business, and a business that is hard to continue when anybody can just use their trademark for free without paying for it.

If you don't like trademark law then do something to change it, but don't disparage Jack Daniels for playing by the rules and conducting themselves in a manner that goes above and beyond what the law requires and above what is commonly accepted practice.

Quite unusual

[geogob]

Their lawyers must be drunk or something...

Re:Quite unusual

[Anonymous Coward]

It was a nicely worded letter. Unfortunately it was delivered by taping it to a whiskey bottle then throwing it at the offenders head.

Re:Quite unusual

[Nyder]

Their lawyers must be drunk or something...

It was too nice to be written by lawyers.

This is how you get things done

[din0]

With a tip of the hat, a please and thank you --A Southerner

Win/win

[Jesrad]

JD's gets free publicity, and strengthens the brand by setting a nice example and by turning Wensik's book's first edition into a collector for its own whiskey fans, while the author enjoys greater exposition for his book, and sells out the first edition as a collector item. The general public loses nothing, some of us can even enjoy an unexpected collectible.

This really is the nicer way to handle brand infringement.

addedbytes.com

[zerro]

I recall something similar occurring to ilovejackdaniels.com which was a language cheat sheet site, which is now addedbytes.com: http://www.addedbytes.com/blog/what-happened-to-ilovejackdaniels-dot-com [addedbytes.com]

Only one thing explains the "niceness" factor

[cvtan]

They wrote it while testing their own product.

Follow up

[onyxruby]

Please tell me the author had as much decency as Jack Daniels and did the right thing by responding with a simple statement along the lines of

"done".

Nope...

[nweaver]

The initial posting by the author was much more along the lines of "Goodbye Beautiful Cover Art", and didn't include the whole letter with all the politeness, explaining why Jack Daniels was writing and their offer to help change the cover early, but just the top. [brokenpian...sident.com]

And actually, IANAL, but it is my understanding that you need to protect your trademarks. Jack Daniels does do books, they do merchandise, etc. So they need to play "protect their trademark". Since the cover was not a parody of Jack Daniels, par

The publisher never considered trademark issue?

[outsider007]

I find that a little hard to believe.

Well done JD

[azalin]

$faith_in_humanity++;

Better than he deserved

[namgge]

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...

Parody

[hey]

Perhaps this could be called parody. Lots of times people take a famous logo and tweak it for a joke or comment. eg the Coke logo that says "Cocaine".
Generally that's called fair use.

Not according to Little Debbie

[bbbaldie]

They stomped all over a t-shirt manufacturer a few years back over "Little Doobie" shirts.

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?

Re:

[serviscope_minor]

eg the Coke logo that says "Cocaine".

I always wonder how many people wearing that shirt realise why the name sounds so much like "cocaine".

Re:

[sorak]

Perhaps this could be called parody. Lots of times people take a famous logo and tweak it for a joke or comment. eg the Coke logo that says "Cocaine".
Generally that's called fair use.

Exactly. Jack Daniels is being nice to this guy because they don't have a leg to stand on. They can either threaten to sue and hope that the legal costs intimidate the publisher into submission, or try to work with the other guy.

Bad editor, bad. Primary sources!

[forand]

This is a great article certainly worth having on the front page of Slashdot. However, the complete lack of editorial oversight is infuriating. The sole link in this article is to Mashable, which cites BoingBoing [boingboing.net], which sites the webpage for the book [brokenpian...sident.com]. I simply clicked through those citation and found the primary source. Why didn't the Slashdot editor do this? To push traffic to Mashable? We should have the primary source as the primary reference. If the discussion on the other sites is worth it then those can be the focus of the article. Otherwise give the primary source!

Re:Bad editor, bad. Primary sources!

[NormalVisual]

As the submitter, I can answer that question. The original page for the book looked to be a WordPress blog, and those often don't deal with Slashdot-level traffic very well. Mashable is a fairly large, well-known site that already handles a fair bit of traffic, and a direct link to the original webpage for the book is in fact included in the Mashable article for those that would be interested in pursuing the story further. It doesn't help anyone if an article doesn't have a working URL, so using the Mashable link had everything to do with making sure the given URL was working and the article was actually available for people to read.

No infringement

[orgelspieler]

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:

• Cigarette lighters not of precious metal
• Non-metal key chains, non-metal key rings, wood boxes and chests, glass signs in the nature of furniture mirrors, tables, picture frames, desk top organizers, wooden bar stools, folding chairs and portable stadium seats, ceramic and glass bottle stoppers with cork, corkboards and bulletin boards; leather key fobs
• Umbrellas, luggage, duffel bags, athletic bags, backpacks, luggage tags, key cases, knapsacks, tote bags and all purpose canvas carrying bags for use as luggage or in travel and sports
• Posters, notepads, paper napkins, mounted and un-mounted photographs, paper coasters, calendars; pens, pencils and cases therefor; notice boards, namely, dry erase writing boards; postcards, banners made of paper, tablecloths of paper, paper placemats, desk pads and stationery-type padfolios
• Belt buckles and clasps for clothing, all made of non-precious metal; ornamental novelty pins
• Cloth banners and pennants, household towels, linens, bed blankets, table covers not of paper, textile placemats and textile wall hangings
• Glass and plastic drinking containers, flasks, ceramic mugs, ceramic pitchers, ceramic jugs, wood coasters, cork coasters, ceramic coasters, swizzle sticks, bowls, household food and beverage containers, glassware for beverages, metal serving trays of non-precious metal, portable beverage dispensers, portable picnic coolers, wooden cutting boards, portable drink dispensers, plastic water bottles sold empty
• Ornamental lapel pins, clocks, watches, cuff links, necklaces and bracelets
• Lamps, barbecue grills, flash lights, pen lights, electric Christmas tree lights and electric lamps
• Guitars, guitar picks, guitar straps, banjos, ukuleles, drum sticks, practice pads for drumming; stringed instrument accessories, namely, straps, strings and slide cords; instrument carrying bags and instrument cases
• Mustard, coffee, cakes, candy and sauces
• Decorative magnets, decorative switch plate covers, mouse and mouse pads, sunglasses, protective eyewear, headphones, musical instrument amplifiers and cell phone cases; guitareoke system, namely, player-operated guitar-shaped video game controllers for electronic video game machines
• Adult collectible die-cast miniature scale model vehicles, balloons, games, playthings and sporting goods, namely, dart boards, dart sets consisting of dart flights and darts, pool cues, pool ball racks, pool balls, cue racks, parlor games comprised of wooden blocks, outdoor activity games in the nature of pitching bungs into galvanized buckets, baseball bats, golf putters, golf ball markers, golf balls, golf clubs, hand grips for golf clubs, golf bags; gaming equipment, namely, poker sets comprised of cards, chips and arm garter sold as a unit; metal golf towel clips; cornhole sets, namely, bean bag games, and Christmas tree ornaments
• Floor mats; carpets and rugs; cloth wall coverings
• Footwear; headwear including caps, hats, cowboy hats, headbands, straw hats, visors, bandannas; clothing, namely, aprons, sleeve garters, t-shirts, golf shirts, work shirts, baseball shirts, woven shirts, shirts, tops, tank tops, sweatshirts, sweatpants, jogging suits, pants, dresses, skirts, sleep pants, pajamas, robes, shorts, jeans, jackets, coats, belts, neckties, neckwear, scarves, suspenders, leather jackets, rain suits, vests, parkas, gloves
• Metal safes, metal bottle stoppers with cork, decorative boxes made of non-precious metal
• Oh yeah, and alcoholic beverages, namely, distilled spirits.

Seeing this makes me happy

[mcsqueak]

It makes me happy whenever I see companies operate in this manner - wish more would act this way, but I actually have experience with a larger company being nice.

As part of my job I file and keep up all the trademark filing for the company I work for, and we actually had a trademark dispute a few years ago, involving a name we were registering being a little too close to an already registered name. They are probably a billion dollar revenue company in size, while we are only a few million.

Despite being in two totally separate markets (but both involving technology products that can communicate with databases, etc.), their lawyer was very nice to me, and simply said they wouldn't pursue any actions against us as long as we dropped our current registration and simply filed a new one with our company name in front of it - so rather than "trademark", it became "companyname trademark". Not a big deal as we usually put our company name on our products any ways.

Their lawyer even helped me better define the wording on our product registration, to make absolutely sure there wouldn't be any overlap with theirs. Didn't cost my company a dime, other than my time and a $325 refiling fee. I was very happy with the outcome, considering they could have buried us in legal crap had they wanted to.

Re:

[ciderbrew]

The same as you did yesterday and the day before.... I'll be doing the same.

Re:In the interests of promoting good businesses,

[serviscope_minor]

The same as you did yesterday and the day before.... I'll be doing the same.

Me too. Also, would you consider joining my online petition for them to change the shape of the bottle since I can't get mine to stay in the cupholder properly especially when I'm swerving all over the place.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

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:

[SJHillman]

Except JD isn't using its size to bully around the author... so no, not this time. Whether or not JD won doesn't much matter (especially since the author made out too).

There's a difference.

[JustAnotherIdiot]

Jack Daniels didn't demand the book cease printing, nor did it demand all the current books be taken off the shelf.

we simply request that you change the cover design when the book is re-printed

They go on to offer to help pay for the change if he does it sooner than the reprint/on the digital version.

Re:

[gman003]

They won, but (and here's the important part) THE OTHER COMPANY DIDN'T LOSE.

Economics is not warfare. In battle, one side wins, the other loses (at least in the general case). Not so in business. It's entirely possible for both sides to win. It's possible for both sides to lose. It's possible for one side to win and the other to be pretty much unaffected - like, say, this time.

People thinking of business only as zero-sum are one of the biggest problems with modern capitalism.

Re:Happy Drunk Lawyers FTW!!

[marsu_k]

Offtopic, but... whiskey burgers? Please elaborate, I'm intrigued.

Re:Sneaky and devious

[SecurityGuy]

Nah, I'm going to give them this one. The slam dunk is a book that's "40 % ALC. By VOL". It was obviously created to connect with the brand. The decorative lines (filigree?) around the edges is also identical. You don't get to trade on someone else's brand, and that's what the author is doing.