LDS Church Bullies Brewery Out Of Beer Brand Referencing Biblical Bees
from the holy-shit dept
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has something of a rollercoaster history when it comes to the enforcement of its real, or perceived, intellectual property rights. On the one hand, the church has occasionally been quite lenient when it comes to not trying to battle every use of its name, traditions, or religious texts. The Book of Mormon (the play) does exist, after all, and it’s not like the church put up some big fight over it. On the other hand, the church has also previously tried to use IP laws to hide all kinds of information from the public and even gone after individuals for trying to get trademarks on terms the church feels would denigrate its stature.
Overall, however, the church appears to lean towards being a bullying bad actor when it comes to IP law generally and trademark law specifically. The latest iteration of this routine sees the LDS Church bullying a brewery out of a beer brand name merely because it references a term out of the Book of Mormon.
A Salt Lake brewery is discontinuing its Deseret IPA over a trademark-related complaint from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Bewilder Brewing Co. announced in a newsletter on Monday that it will “phase out” Deseret IPA and replace it with a new product.
“Unfortunately a large tax exempt Utah-based entity wasn’t pleased with our use of the word Deseret,” the newsletter states. “We have been asked to drop our Trademark and discontinue the brand.”
According to the owner of Bewilder Brewing, Cody McKendrick, the church contacted the brewery and claimed that it had trademark rights that would cause confusion among the public because they were in the classifications for foodstuffs and beverages. Left unspecified were what those trademarked terms were, if they were the same or similar to “Deseret”, and the like.
The reason the name of the brew got the attention of the LDS Church is that “deseret” is a term of affection in the Book of Mormon for honeybees, referenced for their work ethic and dutiful peformance of their tasks. The reason any claims of public confusion over this make zero freaking sense should be obvious: the LDS Church prohibits the consumption of alcohol. The idea that a relatively obscure reference to bees from its holy book is somehow going to confuse any general public, perhaps especially in Utah, that the church was somehow associated with a beer brand is plainly absurd.
Note that all of this came after the brewery abandoned a trademark application for the beer brand last fall after the church and a few other businesses that already use the term filed oppositions. But because trademark bullying works, especially when the bully is much larger than the bullied, the brewery in this case is simply giving up on the brand entirely.
“I don’t have any money to fight with [the church], so we’ll just move on from that beer,” McKendrick said.
And so that is the end of the story. Until, perhaps, the LDS Church sees the light and decides to stop playing the IP bully.
Filed Under: beer, bees, book of mormon, deseret ipa, trademark, trademark bullying
Companies: lds church
Comments on “LDS Church Bullies Brewery Out Of Beer Brand Referencing Biblical Bees”
Just Deserets
Enough said
Ideas for the next beer name:
Ladder Day Taints Pilsner
Magical Underwear IPA
Sister Vibes Sour
Mountain Meadows Massacre Stout
I’ve had Polygamy Porter before. It was good.
Re:
So good you had more than one?
If you have to leave your chosen name for it...
Deserted IPA
The LDS Church is clearly in the wrong here, but it’s a bit more complicated than bullying someone for making a reference to scripture. There are church-owned entities that use the word Deseret—such as the Deseret News (one of Utah’s two big newspapers) and Deseret Book (the official Latter-day Saint publishing wing)—and my understanding is that these official uses of the same term is what’s inspired the bullying.
Again, still clearly in the wrong (who’s going to mistake this for an official Latter-day Saint beer?), but it’s a bit more than “merely because it references a term out of the Book of Mormon.”
Re:
Neither of which are in the same category as beverages, making that point moot.
Together, we’re gonna fix this, you and me. But mostly me.
More wine, Jesus!
Its not my time woman.
/Momglare
Ohhk mom
stop playing the IP bully
They’re literally an IPA bully.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Trademarks
So trademarks don’t matter? I’m sure if the shoe was on the other foot you might think otherwise. I think I’m going to produce the Techdirty website… My guess is that too would take offense and seek recourse through courts.
Re:
You would have a point if the Mormons made a beverage called Deseret, instead you served up one godawful idiotic strawman devoid of any thought and reason.
If the brewery were in Maine, do you guys think LDS would’ve objected?
Just curious.
Defending a Brand is bullying??
Wow! What a naive article.
Yeah the LDS church might be “big” and fit that description of bully but the more relevant definition is taking something that doesn’t belong to them and that’s what the brewery did. Why would people defend that? That’s the very definition of the legal understanding of ownership. It is just as egregious as someone taking the name Techdirt and making it a QAnon website. It’s not legit and shouldn’t be defended.
Re:
What did they take? Has the LDS a trademark on a beer named Deseret?
Never trust a “church” that puts profit and ownership of words front and center, seems to me that they are just a bunch of hypocrites pissing on the word of God.
Re: Re:
Religious halfwits being hypocritical ain’t exactly a new or rare occurrence. I’m infinitely more surprised any time hypocrisy isn’t the default.
Re:
By that logic the LDS church shouldn’t have a trademark on Deseret to begin with.
It’s heavily tied into Utah’s history, to the point of both being a proposed name for the state at one point and being written on Utah’s memorial stone in the Washington monument. Utah’s state seal, state flag, and state highway signs even draw from this (beehive).
By your logic the LDS church has stolen from the very state it gave identity to.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
IP attorney here...
This article is largely inaccurate in it’s understanding of how trademarks work. The church isn’t bullying or trolling about some fantastic “perceived” rights. The church is enforcing it’s intellectual property rights to avoid brand dilution. If you didn’t like that, write a letter to your congressman, but please stop whining about how following the law is somehow irresponsible for this specific entity.
The brewery chose a term that has a very specific context, namely the association with the LDS Church. The brewery selected the term exactly for the context; IPAs have established a humorous tradition of tongue-in-cheek names, and this is far from the first trademark assertion against a beer brand.
It is ridiculous to claim that the rights holder is a bad actor for not tolerating dilution and genericization of it’s brand. It is equally ridiculous to claim that the brand diluter is a good actor for trying to leverage someone else’s goodwill.
Go read about the Louis Vitton toilets, Nike cigarette shoes, and hundreds of others. Same fact pattern, different entity. The rights holder is newrly universally successful. That is what every attorney told Cody the Brewer before he capitulated.
Re:
You’re an attorney, but still use “it’s” incorrectly three times? Remind me never to hire your firm.
Re: Re:
I don’t think he’s an IP-attorney but a church indoctrinated victim.
It’s also telling that a fucking church is worried about “brand dilution” which means it isn’t really a church but more of a corporation that uses the church designation to avoid paying taxes. It’s the worst kind of people, hypocrites all of them.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
hater
Re: Re: Re:2
Tell me, why does a church need brand protection? Are they perhaps selling something?
Seems this church has excised Mark 11:15-17 from their book and is no different from other money-grubbing sleezebags.
And you think I’m hating on the church here? That’s just you projecting your emotional denial about how corrupt the LDS is.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
I’d rather live in an allegedly-corrupt religious community with people who look mostly like me than in a degenerate, definitely corrupt secular world in which cultural enrichers run amok and Democrats import illegal aliens by the hundreds of thousands!
Re: Re: Re:4
Anyone willingly joining a cult based on those arguments are clearly mentally ill and has already lost touch with reality.
Re: Re: Re:4
“with people who look mostly like me”
Tastes a bit racial.
Mono culture is a path to extinction and white supremacy is just another version of it. When everyone is the same, one bug will take you all out very quickly.
Re: Re: Re:4
“And the nicest part of all, Val: I look just like you!”
Re: Re: Re:4
…said no human being, ever.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
Toom knows where it’s at.
Anyone dumb enough to believe in imaginary skyfriends deserves to be mocked until they throw themselves out the nearest window.
Unless it’s Pastafarianism, because those guys are legit.
And people who believe in Norse systems. Fuck yeah Valhalla!
Re:
If you’re an IP attorney, you must be a rather poor one.
With the Louis Vitton toilet, as far as I can tell there’s only the one and it’s a gallery piece made by artist. Which means trademark law is likely not in the picture due to first sale doctrine.
As for the Nike cigarette shoes, it’s a bootleg. Meaning it is competing with the original (Nike in this case) in the same market is a way that is meant to invoke the likeness of the original.
Deseret IPA is quite notably not in the same market and the LDS Church has no intention of entering that market. The very reason there is no intent to enter the market is the same reason there would be no confusion from a customer standpoint.
Re: Re:
I’m not an IP attorney, but I am an attorney that studied IP, intended to practice it initially, likes to be informed on the topic, and would like to pivot to it sometime down the road. I’m no expert, but I agree with you: his analysis sounds less like a veteran IP attorney than I would expect. As you pointed out, he seems to have left out elements of his analysis
Who knew that LDS also runs bot farms to attack blogs besmirching its oh-so-very-clean reputation. You think they do it themselves or outsource it to Russia or North Korea?
Genericization?
So today I learned that “genericization” is actually a real word (well, a real legal term used in the IP trademark legal territory, anyway – that makes it real word?).
But I still don’t really understand how Deseret could possibly be made akin to “Jello” as a (THE) brand of all gelatin products. Or as Kleenex as THE brand of “tissues” to the point that all tissues are referred to as Keenex.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/genericization
What exactly is a Deseret? Can the LDS (or this brewery) possibly make “Deseret” such a broadly understood term for a product or service that other “Deseret-type” products are all referred to as “Deseret”, all products or services of similar like are referred to generically by that “brand” name? What exactly are those other products that can be generically referred to as Deseret? Is it BEER? Come on…
Or hell – what exactly (aside from two publications mentioned in comments) makes Deseret a universally understood term that could possibly mean to the consumer that it relates to ANY actual product or service at all?
I admit I don’t know, I’m far from a legal expert in any arena, I’m definitely not a theologian – and I’m also happy to report that I live FAR away from Utah, so I have no idea of the history of the term, or about the religion that basically seems to run that state.
But seriously? Dilution of your universally accepted trademark for a product? Afraid that beer will take over the “generic” reference of Deseret and then Deseret will ALWAYS mean beer to the consumer? That doesn’t seem likely at all. Does the word also ONLY mean “LDS Pamphlet” at the moment, in such a way that ALL pamphlets or communications from any source are referred to as Deseret?
I’m going to say this smells of bullshit on lots of levels.
-NJ
As the saying goes, you’re entitled to your own opinion, just not to your own facts.
This was a trademark dispute, pure and simple. The LDS Church claims trademark to the use of the term, Deseret. It’s not a Biblical reference (as your headline claims); it’s a term coined in the Book of Mormon.
The Book of Mormon, itself, is in the public domain, so there’s nothing the Church could do if someone decided to, say, make a musical that lampoons LDS doctrine and some of the sillier aspects of a larger LDS culture, as the Book of Mormon was published in 1830. Everything prior to 1928 is automatically in the public domain.
But this isn’t a copyright issue; it’s trademark, which doesn’t expire.
I’m not sure “deseret” was an “affectionate term for honeybee” in the Book of Mormon. It was a term, from the Jaredite civilization in the Book of Ether, one that made it through the process of translation.
Rather than being an obscure reference, it was one the pioneers embraced. They’re the ones who took solace in it as a symbol of industry. Before the admission of Utah, “the Beehive State,” there was the proposed “State of Deseret.”
Deseret remains a term closely associated with the LDS Church, which is why it’s still used for Salt Lake City’s primary paper, the Church-owned Deseret News, as well as the Church-owned bookstore, Deseret Books.
In Utah, the LDS version of the Salvation Army and Goodwill is Deseret Industries.
The Church-owned CBS affiliate, KSL-TV, is owned by Deseret Management Corporation. The Church-owned cattle ranch on the Utah-Wyoming border is Deseret Ranch. Deseret Farms provides plant-based resources for the Church Welfare System. The Deseret name also attaches to the Church’s cattle ranch in Florida, the largest cattle ranch in the U.S.
Are you sensing a pattern here? The Church claims Deseret as a trademark, one indicating a company’s relationship with the Church.
There are also businesses incorporating deseret in their name whose relationship with the Church is not as clear (at least to me): Deseret Food Store (a Utah company that sells products for food storage, something historically encouraged by the Church), Deseret Mill and Pasta Plant, Deseret Transportation, Deseret Wellness. I don’t have time to look all these up.
An argument can be made that Deseret has come to be associated with Utah, rather than which the Church, itself. That, I assume, is why a brewery would seek to incorporate the term, even if the Church teaches its members not to consume its products.
That’s why we have courts. Even if the Church doesn’t chase down every company seeking to appropriate a term that clearly comes from LDS sources, a term used by a variety of for-profit and not-for-profit businesses related to the Church, it’s going to object to its use for any business whose products or services are at odds with its mission.
I’d hold off on investing in a Deseret Brothel.
It’s not bullying for the Church to protect its trademark in the term, just as its not essential that a brewery carry a name that associates it with a church that teaches its members not to drink. The argument can be made that adopting the term was the brewery’s tongue-in-cheek way of sticking its thumb in the Church’s eye, like St. Mary’s Abortion Services or Quaker Handguns.
The Church has rights. It’s not bullying to assert them. If the brewery felt it had a strong position, it could have and should have dug in. It’s mostly a paper battle – as to the term’s history, registration and legal exclusivity. There’s no such thing as inexpensive litigation but this is hardly the most expensive claim to litigate.
Undoubtedly, the Church has more cash reserves to call on, and maybe more lawyers to bring, but as the man once said, “It doesn’t matter how many lawyers you bring. Only one can talk at a time.”
It certainly wouldn’t be the first time somebody decided to tease and taunt an opponent outside its weight class.
If you don’t want to fight with the bear, don’t poke him in the eye.
Re:
Sure, they have rights. And they also have no trademarks registered for alcoholic beverages, or any other type of beverage for that matter. That means when they use a trademark to go after a good or service they have no trademark for it is bullying.
Ie, they are using their money and clout to bully someone with less resources. Seems to me they are acting exactly like an immoral corporation that’ll happily use the threat of legal challenges to silence people they don’t like.
Re: Legal thuggery at it's finest
The Church has rights. It’s not bullying to assert them.
It is when they’re asserting a right they don’t have in the form of a trademark for alcoholic beverages or claiming that there might be any customer confusion and people thinking that because it has ‘Deseret’ in the name the alcoholic beverage must be linked to the ‘no alcohol allowed’ religion.
If the brewery felt it had a strong position, it could have and should have dug in. It’s mostly a paper battle – as to the term’s history, registration and legal exclusivity. There’s no such thing as inexpensive litigation but this is hardly the most expensive claim to litigate.
An easy thing to say when you aren’t the one facing down an opponent that could throw millions at the legal fight and not even notice, something I’m guessing neither you nor the brewery you’d so casually denigrate could manage.
Re:
“Undoubtedly, the Church has more cash reserves to call on ..
It certainly wouldn’t be the first time somebody decided to tease and taunt an opponent outside its weight class.
If you don’t want to fight with the bear, don’t poke him in the eye.”
Once again, money == power == I’m right yer wrong
Re:
KSL-TV hasn’t been with CBS since 1995, when the network made KUTV an O&O as part of the mid-’90s’ national realignment of network affiliations. That sent NBC (which had acquired KUTV not long beforehand) to KSL, where it remains today.
You haven’t updated your copy-and-paste talking points since then, I take it.
The Book of Mormon is a musical, not a play. (Musicals convey heightened emotion through song and dance, while plays do not.)
Re:
“Musical” is short for “musical play”. It is both.
Always thought Deseret was just name of a newspaper. learn something new.