Reasonable use of IP law

[Dominic Kelly]

I've been having my say on other people's use of trade marks lately but just found reason to make an application to IPONZ for a trademark myself. So to avoid any appearance of hypocrisy I'm gonna be completely open about this.

 

I'm applying for a trademark for "Pacific Beer Expo". I'm doing this:

(a) on the assumption that the expression is original. 

(b) to avoid the risk that someone wilfully or by accident follows us with an event of the same name that might take advantage of or damage what we create. The risk should be low but there are some strange, vindictive or just plain thieving people out there and this is $NZ100 plus GST worth of insurance.

 

If anyone finds fault with my logic, feel free to have an open discussion about.

 

cheers,

 

Dominic

[Greig McGill]

I'm with Mr 6 on this one. Dom, I totally understand your motivations for doing this. It seems to boil down to "it's a dirty game, so I'll have to play by those dirty rules". I also see your point about $100 worth of insurance, and it's perfectly rational. My idealist side says that it would be better to take the high road though and not register such a TM - a name can be clever, but I'm not convinced it can be innovative. My idealist side is a bit of a wanker though, especially when he's had a few radlers.

[Dominic Kelly]

I think you're getting carried away with the innovation side. If we invent a better mousetrap we can go and patent it. This is a trademark discussion and just about the originality of our name and whether it is sufficiently distinctive that someone else might unfairly exploit or spoil it at a later date, and also whether we have a right to lay claim to a phrase.

And sorry but one thing that separates us from apes is the ability to take existing words and create phrases with additional or nuanced meaning, so please don't dismiss "three common words" as if only made up words count. Here are some recently registered trademarks: "Superheroes of the Accounting World", "The Amazing Travelling Photobooth" and "The Bacon Buttie Man". All phrases made of reasonably common words so by 6's logic they are invalid too, but they seem pretty fair to me.

[Doublehoppy]

The Pacific's a bloody big place...

[Simon Smith]

I can't see how organising 3 words in a particular order, that others haven't done before, is not innovative... but most importantly to me, a trademark is not about innovation. Copyright and patents I don't support, but trademarks are a way of letting consumers know they are getting what they think they are. All this would mean is that others can't call their beer festival, in New Zealand, the 'Pacific Beer Expo.' There is no limitation on creating your own expo, and even copying the general theme of the Pacific Beer Expo... all you need to do is come up with your own name.

 

I would hate to see a bad application by DB, and decision by IPONZ, to reduce the value to consumers that a trademark can have. In terms of a Pacific Beer Expo, I could be sure if I attend it would be a great event as I know Dominic will be involved and I respect his judgement. The inverse is true of the Radler trademark debacle, in that if I was buying something called Radler I would expect it to be a Radler... and not some decidedly average lager with a squirt of lemon lime dishwash liquid added at bottling (at least, that's how I assume they make it).

 

Short version: Fully support of the idea of trademarking the name of a beer expo, both to protect the investment of the organisers and to let me as a consumer know that I am getting what I expect. Don't support the granting of trademarks that are misleading.

[Greig McGill]

Yep, I've thought a lot about this and agree 100%. Nicely stated Simon.

[DP]

Would I be infringing the trademark if I were to, say, organise a tour of the breweries of Japan, Australia, NZ and the US calling it the "Pacific Beer Expedition"?