Schlafly Family Loses Appeal To Block Schlafly Family Member's Brewery's Trademark Application

from the beer-me dept

As you will by now know, trademark bullying ticks me off. In particular, trademark bullying built on ideological grounds rather than any real concern over customer confusion gets my fur up. But when all of the above occurs against a brewery, makers of sweet, sweet beer? Well, that is a bridge too far.

Which is why it is with great pleasure that I can inform you that the greater Schlafly family, famous for its matriarch and puritanical icon Phyllis Schlafly, has lost a trademark opposition against another family member's brewery. This all started when the now late Phyllis Schlafly and her son Bruce Schlafly opposed her nephew Tom Schlafly from trademarking the name of his beer, Schlafly Beer. The opposition itself made zero sense, since Phyllis and Bruce chiefly objected to having their surname associated with the beer, given that Phyllis' reputation was particularly well cultivated with the Mormon and Baptist populations that don't look kindly on alcohol, generally. Successfully opposing the mark, however, wouldn't keep Tom from keeping that name for his beer. Instead, it simply meant that essentially everyone could call their beer Schlafly Beer, compounding the problem. Regardless, the Trademark Office took one look at the opposition and tossed it on obvious grounds, namely that Schlafly is Tom's surname too, and nobody is necessarily going to see Schlafly beer and suddenly think Phyllis took to boozing late in life.

Well, the Schlafly's appealed that decision, even after Phyllis passed away, and now the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has unanimously ruled in favor of the brewery's right to produce Schlafly Beer.

In a 3-0 decision, the U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Saint Louis Brewery LLC, which was co-founded by Schlafly’s nephew Thomas Schlafly, and had applied in 2011 to trademark the Schlafly name.  Circuit Judge Pauline Newman said the name had acquired a “secondary meaning” and “distinctiveness” through sales of Schlafly-branded beer, and that surnames could be trademarked when that occurred. The brewery began selling beer with the Schlafly logo in 1991, and sales had reached 74.8 million cans, bottles and draft servings between 2009 and 2014.

And that should be that for a trademark dispute that really, really never should have made it this far. Trademark law is built on the test of consumer confusion, and opposing a mark for a product already this widely distributed, wherein the person applying for the mark has a totally reasonable claim to the mark -- it's his surname -- is, on its face, not an opposition that cares about confusion. Instead, it was clear from the outset that this was some combination of family strife mixed with puritanical ideology attempting to use trademark law as a vehicle towards an end. The court rightly saw right through this and upheld the dismissal of the opposition.

“This is a huge relief,” Thomas Schlafly, who is also the brewery’s chairman, said in an interview. “It had never occurred to me that my relatives, who had no connection with beer, would oppose a routine trademark.”

Sure, because that opposition was unreasonable. Still, this story happens to end well. I can look forward to toasting the memory of Phyllis Schlafly with an ice-cold can of Schlafly beer.

Filed Under: bruce schlafly, phyllis schlafly, schlafly beer, trademark


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Lou S Bowles, 4 Dec 2018 @ 5:49am

    Re: 'Who's the greater fool? The fool, or the one who follows them?'

    The only thing sadder than a deranged individual obsessing for years over a site they hate is someone in turn obsessing over them.

    Says the obsessor with 15,367 comments!

    As practical fact, so long as with zero effort I'm DRIVING in advance 3 out of 5 comments (including yours!) to clutter the site, then I'm WINNING, kids.

    YOU need to roll back YOUR insanity and tolerate dissent. It's a discussion forum open to everyone by the form contract, NOT your walled garden.

    Here's what USED TO BE IN PLACE, I'm not asking for anything new or special: the "Report" button is only for those comments which are either commercial or outside common law.

    "Hiding" of my comments used to be NEVER DONE, now it's automatic by all regulars soon as see don't like a comment. YOU are ruining the site, kids. NOT ME. YOU. -- I'm LAUGHING at you who can't handle even a little bit of dissent in text!

    By the way: I've not changed my views nor how stated (except as topics have), but my comments stand out far more these days among the VERY FEW since everyone reasonable LEFT. You / the site are losing in all ways. And yet will not change! -- Except for some new cosmetics.

    The underlying cause of your inability to tolerate dissent is that your piratey notions have failed, and Masnick is ever more openly a corporatist / globalist. You're simply trying to keep the internet from working as should.

    So long as the "hiding" continues I'll protest it, besides write what I think substantive disagreement with Masnick's views. You will of course claim that I only "troll" and ad hom, but I'm well within the "ignorant motherfucker" standard (written by the very Timothy Geigner aka "Dark Helmet" here) which Masnick himself set when called that a "joke", at least when directed at me.

    Masnick could end the undue "hiding" in five minutes. -- INDEED DID last year for a while, just like turning a switch. -- It's not "the community", there's an Admin / Mod who decides. -- It's also helpful for my case here that Masnick has to LIE about a "voting system" that has no up votes even possible.

    Ruining the site is entirely Masnick's choice, and I choose to take it as a positive. The few prospective new readers will click on a few hidden comments and see that ALL dissent is suppressed, the regulars clearly too childish to either ignore or refute, so they leave. As should when a site betrays its stated principles.


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
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

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