The beer wars continue: Patagonia sues Anheuser-Busch, alleging trademark infringement
adage.com/article/cmo-strategy/patagonia-sues...
adage.comPosted Apr 11, 2019, 6:32 PM UTC
2536
adage.comSome trademarks like Google have become so well known that they get a different analysis. But generally, you can have the same trademark used by different owners for different products. That is why you have to designate specific international classes of goods or services when you apply to register a trademark.
1
I'm no trademark expert, but just looking at the logos and the designs, there seems to be a significant likelihood of source confusion.
Patagonia is literally a mountainous region and they're in completely different industries.
They actually aren't. For one, Patagonia makes beer. Two, AnB is basically selling their Patagonia beer at pop up shops next to ski resorts with a bunch of clothing that's suspiciously similar to the design of say, Patagonia's nano puff jacket.
If you clicked the article, you'd see the clothes.
Would a company selling Alaska t-shirts with Denali in the background have a case against Alaskan brewing company?
I mean, if it's just a company selling "Alaska t-shirts" no.
But let's say the company has a Trademark for "Denali." It's not unheard of. In fact, GM has that trademark for cars.
So, let's say your beer company started selling beer called Denali, for "real men who liked nice things with outstanding capabilities." And, they sold the beer, by the case at pop up car dealerships where you could also buy tricked out F-150s that were also marked "Denali."
I thought that kind of thing was the basis for that Holloster v. Abrrcrombie and Fitch case.
I like this response. Patagonia is a region, so I think the clothing brand has an uphill battle to argue that their brand has become so ubiquitous that even products in totally different verticals would be seen to have come from the same source.
Well, the thing is, Patagonia (clothing) actually has a beer and InBev has been making branded Patagonia clothing.
https://www.patagoniaprovisions.com/pages/long-root-pale-ale
https://s3-prod.adage.com/s3fs-public/20190410_AB_Patagonia_lawsuit_3x2.jpg
If that’s the case then there could be a problem. That info wasn’t in the article.
I actually think it won't be that hard given the logo similarities
The region seems irrelevant, unless they're sourcing their hops or something from it, because they otherwise can't argue they're using it descriptively, but rather, they'd be using it almost identically to the clothing brand
That’s not how it works. You can have similar trademarks owned by different owners with different products.
Unfortunately for Patagonia, the fight is significantly more complicated than just a likelihood of confusion analysis. A-B's "PATAGONIA" mark was registered with the PTO in connection with beer in 2012 and has since become incontestable. Thus, the only forseeable way Patagonia can challenge A-B's "PATAGONIA" mark is by alleging that A-B obtained the registration though fraud on the PTO. As I explained in more detail in another comment in this thread, this is a tremendously hard hurdle to overcome and almost never wins even win there is good evidence in support--it requires clear and convincing evidence (a significantly higher threshold than the usual civil standard) that A-B deliberately misled the PTO.
You're probably right on the beer part.
But the clothes that look virtually identical to the popular Patagonia stuff?
I'm only going by the photos in the article, but it just looks like a standard down jacket -- the ridges are needed to hold the down in place, they aren't just for fashion. Eddie Bauer makes something nearly identical. Although the beer jacket is probably fake down.