Brewery Sues Competitor Over Schooner Logos And Use Of The Word 'Head'

from the come-sail-away dept

Another day, another sigh-inducing trademark dispute in the craft beer industry. As we've discussed for some time now, the beer industry has a massive problem on its hands in the form of a deluge of trademark disputes between competitors. This has largely been the result of a huge uptick in craft brewers opening new businesses saddled alongside the tradition of creatively naming different beers and the limitations of the English language. Sometimes, however, you get a good old fashioned trademark dispute where one side is simply claiming similarities so tenuous as to be laughable.

Introducing Shipyard Brewing Co., which is suing Logboat Brewing Company claiming that because the latter both uses an image of a schooner on its label for its Shiphead beer brand and because the name of the beer includes the word "head" at all, that its a trademark violation. Let's deal with each in order, mostly because simply putting the beer labels side by side should allow us to take the schooner portion of the claim off the list of things we'll take seriously quite easily.

Do both labels use the image of a schooner? Yup! Are those uses, or the labels themselves, even remotely similar? Hell no! Shipyard's label is a picture of a schooner on the water, whereas Logboat's label is dominated by an image of a woman with a schooner for a head. You know, "shiphead." The beer labels themselves aren't remotely similar so as to rise to the level of trademark infringement.

Which Shipyard likely realizes, which is why they're lacing this trademark suit with the following claims: its the combination of the label and Logboat's use of the word "head" and the name it gave its outdoor seating area near the brewery that creates the customer confusion.

Shipyard further owns and has used other trademarks that contain the term HEAD as a suffix in relation to its beers, including, but not limited to, PUMPKINHEAD, MELONHEAD, and APPLEHEAD. Shipyard’s family of SHIPYARD, SHIP, and HEAD marks (collectively “Shipyard’s Trademarks”) all were in use and/or registered prior to Logboat’s earliest priority date of February 20, 2014.

The suit goes on to note that Logboat refers to its outdoor eating area as "the shipyard", which, yeah, the brewery has a boating theme. But with all of the examples of "ship" and "head" related trademarks owned by Shipyard, what the company chiefly demonstrates is that it does not have a trademark registered for "shiphead." The owner of that mark is Logboat, actually, which was registered in 2014 at which time no opposition was raised against it by Shipyard or anyone else. Logboat took to social media to explain:

“Logboat’s Shiphead Ginger Wheat trademark was registered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office following examination by a trademark examiner,” the statement said, “and successfully passed though the public opposition phase. Logboat’s mark was never challenged during the registration process as being likely to cause confusion with the trademark of any other party.”

What Shipyard is trying to do is string two or three tenuous trademark issues together and weave it into a valid trademark lawsuit. It's very unlikely to work, however, given how dissimilar the logos and marks are.

Filed Under: beer, head, schooners, shiphead, shipyard, trademark
Companies: logboat brewing, shipyard brewing

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jun 2017 @ 4:20am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You know…

    "say it once at the right time and it punches you in the gut."

    Really, Mean Girl? Not actually. A word "punches you in the gut"? Only in your pretty little head.

    " jerk himself off at how many replies he gets"

    You are displaying your sexual starvation, Wendy. I said nothing sexual, and yet again, you bring up sex-acts, just like before. Not attractive!

    And another fake apology, you use that "Mean Girl" tactic a lot, right? Pretty old, used again and again, not attractive either!

    My post was about the mis-use of profanity in the place of an argument, specifically the word sh*t. You have replied umpteen times with no rational argument at all. You talk about excrement, about masturbation, about genitals, you really scream sexual frustration. I don't. I am on the side of reasonable discourse, trying to serve the public good of discouraging the use of excrement and inappropriate sexual language.

    Neither of you denied being females posing as men. Your male names that you apparently made up, along with your male profiles, are obvious to even the casual observer. Embarrassed a little, Mean Girls?

    This is my small contribution to the public, to try to point out the inappropriate use of excrement as an argument. You, meanwhile, extend excrement into sexual-act behavior and exposing genitals, also inappropriate.

    Do you even understand how far out of normal healthy culture you are? Go ahead, defend excrement again, but do it without any sexual verbiage and with a clear argument. Do you have any non-disgusting non-sexual-act argument at all? Have you ever?

Add Your Comment

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

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.