Snow White and the Seven Angry Lawyers

Now for an IP case that does have merit. Posted on Slashfood, here's an article about a promotional campaign for an Australian brewer that was... poorly thought out.

Jamieson's Brewery is launching a new raspberry ale under the slogan "Anything but sweet", aimed at convincing Aussie beer drinkers that fruit beers don't all taste like candy. Unfortunately they used a depiction of a certain "Ho White" and the seven renamed dwarves ("Smarmy", "Randy", etc.).

The Mouse was not amused.

And rightly so. This is clearly a derivative work, damaging to the wholesome reputation of the original movie. And since Disney will push to extend copyright terms any time any of its characters nears the public domain (Mickey first appeared in 1928!), it will also defend those copyrights. And here they'd be justified. Since it's an advertisement selling beer, any Fair Use parody defense will almost certainly fail.

Of course the use of a 'Snow White' character isn't itself a copyright violation. The stories have long been in the public domain, most notably the Brothers Grimm version. Using the basic storyline (Beautiful girl has problems with stepmother, flee to woods to live with creepy short guys, oops poison apple, Prince Charming saves day) wouldn't be a violation at all. But the picture is obviously derived from the Disney characters and this is just what copyright is designed for.

Even though this ad is a lot closer to the original story than Disney's movie ever was.

Monster vs. Vermonster

The brewing community has been buzzing over a trademark dispute between Monster Energy Drink maker Hansen's Beverages and Rock Art Brewery in Vermont. Rock Art makes a barleywine called 'Vermonster' and when it announced plans to market outside the state Hansen's sent them a cease and desist for using their trademark on "Monster". Apparently, Hansen's has plans to enter to alcoholic beverage market. (Almost undoubtedly with an alcoholic energy drink, the difficulties of which I've commented on before.) Of course, Rock Art was already in the alcoholic beverage market...

It would seem that Rock Art is in the right. There is little risk of confusion or dilution of Hansen's mark. Monster's argument that 'Vermonster' might create the impression that Monster endorsed the use of the mark holds little water. Ben and Jerry's makes a Vermonster Ice Cream (Maple ice cream, roasted pecans and caramel swirl. Mmmm....) and Hansen's is not suing them. (And interestingly, B&J aren't suing Rock Art, in a very Vermont kindof way.) But defending a trademark dispute against a large corporation can bankrupt a small company. Yet owner/brewer Matt Nardeau decided to fight, and angry beer drinkers joined in. Calls for boycotts and angry letters to Hansen's appeared all over. Then Nardeau released this video which has 64,000 views as of 3:00, Oct 21st.



Apparently the parties have reached an amicable agreement, as of today Rock Art is claiming victory on their website.

Russell H. Everett, Esq.

So I took quite a break after the WA Bar Exam and I suppose it's fitting that I return with this post:

I passed!

I'm filled with an enormous sense of relief and, indeed optimism for the future. And I am so relieved that I won't ever have to take that test again.

I figure it is time to get posting again and I have a few things in mind that should go up tomorrow.

South Carolina Judge Rules State Ban On Underage Possession Unconstitutional

After today I'm dropping off the face of the Earth until the Bar is over. But saw this and decided on a quick post.

A magistrate in South Carolina has ruled that a state statute prohibiting underage alcohol sale, consumption, and possession is unconstitutional. At the heart of the matter is Article 17, Section 14 of the SC Constitution (emphasis added):

SECTION 14. Citizens deemed sui juris; restrictions as to sale of alcoholic beverages.

Every citizen who is eighteen years of age or older, not laboring under disabilities prescribed in this Constitution or otherwise established by law, shall be deemed sui juris and endowed with full legal rights and responsibilities, provided, that the General Assembly may restrict the sale of alcoholic beverages to persons until age twenty-one. (1973 (58) 864; 1975 (59) 13.)

So technically it does seem that the restriction is limited to sale under the state constitution. But let us not forget Section 2 of the 21st Amendment:

Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

The 'delivery and use therein' language has been a headache for the courts since the amendment's adoption. Is a sale a "delivery"? A "use"? Generally though, underage restrictions on sale, use, and possession have been found valid exercises of state 21st Amendment power.

In WA underage possession and consumption is prohibited:

§ 66.44.270. Furnishing liquor to minors -- Possession, use -- Penalties -- Exhibition of effects -- Exceptions
...
(2)(a) It is unlawful for any person under the age of twenty-one years to possess, consume, or otherwise acquire any liquor. A violation of this subsection is a gross misdemeanor punishable as provided for in chapter 9A.20 RCW.

However, there are always exceptions. And WA is big on protecting in-home privacy.

(3) Subsections (1) and (2)(a) of this section do not apply to liquor given or permitted to be given to a person under the age of twenty-one years by a parent or guardian and consumed in the presence of the parent or guardian. This subsection shall not authorize consumption or possession of liquor by a person under the age of twenty-one years on any premises licensed under chapter 66.24 RCW.

Underage children may be given alcohol by their parents if consumed in their presence. And that 66.24 reference refers to bars and restaurants, so it has to be in a non-licensed premises like their home, or presumably some other private place. Section 2(b) prohibits underage public intoxication, and the only exceptions are for medical and religious use. So presumably parents can't serve their kids at, say, a park BBQ.

And I'm sure that if you started giving little Jimmy his morning bowl of Whisky n' Cheerios, Child Services would be on your case.

The South Carolina case is being appealed. I'm sure they'll find a reason to reverse.

Update: Pride of Pyongyang - The Video!

So it seems that North Korea's Taedong River Beer factory has released a commercial! (Alternate video link) Apparently it's quite rare for the government run television station to run advertising of any kind. The music is quite fetching really.

But it has nothing on Mr. Sparkle.

Ushers Pride of Pyongyang

Here's a fun BBC article about how the old Ushers Trowbridge brewery was sold to the North Koreans, dismantled piece by piece, and moved to to Pyongyang.

See, no matter how bad life is in North Korea at least they have beer.

My favorite part: the seller's first thought was "Am I going to get paid?"

Two Articles

Two interesting articles I came across recently.

1) From Reuters: StatoilHydro Fights Lithuanian Alcohol Ban. Norwegian gasoline company fighting Lithuanian ban on night sales of alcohol at gas stations. Lithuania (like most of the former Soviet bloc countries) has serious problems with alcoholism. We're talking 14 liters pure ethanol per capita annually (the U.S. is closer to 9 liters). Banning night sales at gas stations has apparently dropped alcohol related accidents by 45%. But the company, majority owned by the Norwegian government, is pressing to have the ban revoked, alleging that not all of its competitors are complying (probably true). But still kind of funny, because Norway has some of the most restrictive alcohol laws in the world. You can't even buy alcohol at gas stations in Norway.

2) From the BBC: Alcohol Link to one in 25 Deaths. That's worldwide. It's 1 in 10 in Europe, and 1 in 7 in Russia...