Now the outcry seems to be over the heavy-handed approach of Pusser's to a New York-based bar called Painkiller (now known as PKNY). In trademarking the name 'Painkiller', Pusser's have got their knickers in a twist over the fact a bar had the gall to name themselves after the cocktail and then use a different brand in the actual cocktail. Trademarking cocktails is not a recent phenomenon and I can point to the Dark & Stormy (Goslings, Bermuda), Sazerac (New Orleans) and the Bacardi Cocktail as being good examples of trademarked/branded cocktails. Were Pusser's within reason to enforce their trademark on the bar? After having a look at the arguments for both sides, I would tend to side with Pusser's for the sole reason that if Painkiller (now PKNY) were to have used Pusser's as the base rum, then none of this would have come about. I've now possibly risked the wrath of an entire Facebook page...
Thanks for the link.
ReplyDeleteHowever, Gosling's trademark on "Dark n' Stormy" extends only to bottled premixed cocktails and to apparel. And I'm not sure why Pusser's got a trademark on "Painkiller" as an alcoholic beverage, given that it's a descriptive name for a drink -- Perfect Beverages failed in their 2007 trademark application for "Moscow Mule" for just such a reason.
IP law protection doesn't extend to recipes, and there's nothing in Pusser's trademarks about mandating Pusser's Rum for a Painkiller. In fact, Pusser's admits that they didn't create the Painkiller, and it was invented at least nine years before Pusser's even existed. Their legal grounds seem shaky to me, but they've got more lawyers and more money.
Always more than meets the eye. Thanks for the clarification. Unfortunately it does always seem to be money that dictates the law, rather than the actual law! Pusser's have got themselves some bad press out of this, but press nonetheless. The bar themselves have not done too bad from this either. Grey areas all over this case, I might go and sit back on the fence.
ReplyDelete