Dunks And Drunks: Jagermeister Blocks Milwaukee Bucks Logo Trademark Application

from the deer-milwaukee dept

Just when you think you’ve seen it all in silly trademark filings, along comes a liquor company to block the trademark application for the logo of an NBA basketball team. Jagermeister, a liquor I haven’t thought about since my college days because I’m a grownup that drinks grownup drinks, has decided that the logo for the Milwaukee Bucks is too similar to its own logo and must be stopped.

Germany-based Mast-Jägermeister SE has filed its opposition to the Milwaukee Bucks trademark application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The notice, filed Thursday, argues that there is a likelihood of confusion between the two logos, a false suggestion of connection and a dilution of the Jägermeister logo’s “distinctive quality.” Jägermeister says the services provided by the two organizations “are so related” that it creates the potential for confusion. The potential for confusion “is enhanced by the extraordinary fame” of Jägermeister’s trademarks, the notice says.

Here are the logos in question.

Similar? Sure, I suppose, although there are fairly distinct differences between the two logos that would probably keep any customer confusion at bay. There are those lines within the circle on Jagermeister’s logo, for instance. Also that big cross at the top, there, I suppose, because Jesus was a huge fan of Bavarian digestifs. Also, and this is a minor point only, the basketball franchise’s name is right there on their logo.

Regardless of all of that, whatever involvement Jagermeister has in markets other than beverages is minimal, it doesn’t have anything to do with basketball, nor would it amount to creating any confusion within the public. All of which Jagermeister has essentially acknowledged in a statement saying that that it is really just wasting everyone’s time with all of this while trotting out everyone’s favorite excuse for paining someone else’s ass with trademark law.

On Monday, Jägermeister’s trademark attorney, Katrin Lewertoff of Connecticut apologized for the delay and issued a statement suggesting there really is no trademark tiff.

“Jägermeister and the Milwaukee Bucks have been cooperating on this issue for months,” she said. “The filing was a formality to preserve our intellectual property rights. We expect to come to an agreement with the team soon and appreciate the climate of partnership and fair cooperation with the Milwaukee Bucks in the process.”

Soon after, the Bucks chimed in with, ““The Bucks have been working amicably with Jägermeister throughout this process and we are confident that we will come to a resolution very soon.”

So everyone is going to end up playing nice over this, but Jagermeister had to block the application in order to preserve it’s trademark rights. It’s the same excuse we see time and time again and it’s almost always false. In this case, for instance, the law only obligates Jagermeister to police it’s trademarks in the face of true infringement or confusion. There is none in this case, so the blocking of the application was not necessary.

Whatever the purpose of trademark has become in modern times, I doubt the framers had intended it to simply create busy work for lawyers and USPTO employees.

Filed Under: , , ,
Companies: jagermeister, milwaukee bucks

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Dunks And Drunks: Jagermeister Blocks Milwaukee Bucks Logo Trademark Application”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

They should lose the trademark

When a company asserts their rights incorrectly like this, they should lose the trademark. Too often small companies and individuals get bullied legally for no real reason and there is no punishment to prevent it. When an obviously baseless case like this pops up, the authorities should punish the bullies by revoking the trademark and preventing them from obtaining it again for 2 years. If they abuse it again, they should be prevented from ever having a trademark and having to pay heavy fines to the commission that monitors for abuse like this.

MDT (profile) says:

Benefit of the Doubt

Honestly, if I were Jaegermeister, I’d probably file the paperwork as well. As much of a pain as it is, we’ve had too many stories lately of judges making idiotic rulings to ignore it. Remember, this is a German company, and Germany just made the Internet Illegal in a recent ruling on linking. (And don’t get me started on the idiocy of API’s having copyright that is the CAFC.) Given things like that, you can’t really blame them for erring on the side of assumption of judicial stupidity.

Hooter McBus (profile) says:

Not unusual

I’m assuming the ‘preservation of rights’ has more to do with the time within which to file an opposition.

If it had not filed an opposition in time, it would lose any right to oppose the trade mark (except in a Courtroom).

It is possible that it may not even actually press the opposition, but it was legally necessary to preserve its position in the event that discussions ultimately failed, and it made then considered the matter and decided at that point to oppose it.

Preserving time limits in this manner is entirely reasonable and not at all unusual.

killthelawyers (profile) says:

Re: Re: Not unusual

They don’t, but it’s an incentives issue. On the one hand, aggressive protection is beneficial because the other side may withdraw its application and, therefore, whatever lost value (however small) you may have suffered will not be felt. Further, it may discourage others from challenging your trademark or infringing because they’re aware of how litigious you are. Lastly, there is no punishment for being overly protective, so the only costs are the money you spend and the sting from getting benchslapped on occasion.

Anonymous Coward says:

Same question

I asked before, didn’t see an answer:

Company A has a trademark for ACME Rocketships
Company B wants to market Acme Blowup dolls

Why can’t Company A send Company B a letter with “Company A makes rocket ships. Company B makes blowup dolls. Rather than look like complete jerks, we hereby grant a non-exclusive, non-transferable license to Company B to use ACME Blowup Dolls for a period of one year from date of blah blah blah so long as company B does not use ACME in relation to Rocket Ships.” – and so on and so on.

Seegras (profile) says:

Re: Same question

It doesn’t even need an answer. Because, these are not the same trademarks, even if the have the same name.

As it happens, trademarks are per category:

Company A has a trademark in class 10, company B in class 28. Or in the other example, Jägermeister has one in class 33, and the Bucks have trademarks in 28 and 41. And they don’t ever clash.

It just seems something like “category” is too complicated a concept for (trademark)-attorneys.

PaulT (profile) says:

“Also that big cross at the top, there, I suppose, because Jesus was a huge fan of Bavarian digestifs”



“The label on Jägermeister bottles features a glowing Christian cross seen between the antlers of a stag.[10][11] This image is a reference to the two Christian patron saints of hunters, Saint Hubertus and Saint Eustace, both of whom converted to Christianity after experiencing a vision in which they saw a Christian cross between the antlers of a stag.”

Stan (profile) says:

random comments

“there are fairly distinct differences …that would probably keep any customer confusion at bay.”

Unless the customer had a few beers and attempts to purchase the Milwaukee Bucks.

And later on…”both of whom converted to Christianity after experiencing a vision” Kick-ass beer will do that to you. No wonder college kids like it.

p.s. the video link is intended for viewers who are thinking of trying Jagermeister

Andrei Mincov - Trademark Factory (profile) says:

There's a reason to their madness

Are alcohol and basketball related for the purposes of trademarking? Probably not. However, instead of ridiculing Jagermeister for launching a baseless opposition, I would think that what they’re really trying to do is to get Milwaukee Bucks to make an undertaking that they would not be getting into the alcohol business.

Andrei Mincov
Founder and CEO of Trademark Factory® ( https://trademarkfactory.com ), the only firm in the world where licensed lawyers and trademark agents will help you register your trademarks with a free comprehensive trademark search, for a single all-inclusive flat fee, with a 100% money-back guarantee.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...