Ken Byron’s Extra Mature FVF

Log in

SmokingPipes.com Updates

New Cigars




PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

Drucquers Banner

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

Status
Not open for further replies.

Johnny_Pipecleaner

Part of the Furniture Now
Nov 13, 2019
583
2,984
Mill Valley, CA
I was lucky enough to snag some of this fermented sweetened FVF from KBV last night. It appears to have sold out in under an hour.


It’s FVF with 2 years of age, then Ken apparently performed some sorcery with a fermentation chamber as well.

Stoked I was able to get in on this one, as FVF is a favorite of mine.

And now we wait...
00EB5659-3C45-4BF7-8040-08CD625CD220.jpeg
 

Johnny_Pipecleaner

Part of the Furniture Now
Nov 13, 2019
583
2,984
Mill Valley, CA
Just curious but is this legal from a trademark perspective?

View attachment 17230

I’m no lawologist or anything, but he seems to be simply giving credit where it is due. He’s reselling someone else’s product, and noting the way he has “stored” it over the past two years.

I think it would be more troublesome if he completely rebranded the product, no?
 

condorlover1

Lifer
Dec 22, 2013
7,996
26,614
New York
We have had a very 'rock and roll' thread on here the other year regarding trademark infringement when someone produced a bunch of copies of Standard Tobacco labels for cellaring purposes. We did issue 'cease and desist' proceedings at the time but had someone just asked for permission we would probably have said it was fine. Its probably a good idea to ask permission before charging off and doing something since trademarks are very expensive to acquire and protect. The nearest analogy I can think of would you let a stranger borrow your name and then proceed to sell a bunch of some product in your name?
 
  • Like
Reactions: danimalia and Bowie

verporchting

Lifer
Dec 30, 2018
2,879
8,933
Interesting question re: wines. To some extent every day of aging makes it a new “improved” product but doesn’t change the fact it is still X brand wine carrying X brand’s name and logo - which is a property right. The vendor owns the physical bottle of wine but the property rights still belong to brand X forever. They did nothing to relinquish those rights by selling the vendor a bottle of wine. Rebranding or relabeling it as “Vendor’s Brand X Aged” is most likely copyright infringement because the vendor is piggybacking off the brand and really the “added” value is nothing more than time which runs without any affirmative action of the vendor. Just adding a sticker or such on the original or similar label doesn’t change anything and actually makes the case stronger for the brand since vendor is using trademarked images or branding likenesses on the labels.

Question is does brand care enough to pursue their legal recourse or do they figure, hey it’s still our product and we sold it once so who cares what the secondary market does with it afterwards?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BROBS

SpookedPiper

Lifer
Sep 9, 2019
2,055
10,503
East coast
I saw that blend pop up yesterday but didnt bother clicking on it as I thought it was just FVF. I thought to myself, don't need anymore of that blend so I skipped over it, just to find out that it was a adulterated version. Kinda wish I would have clicked on the description link.
 
Jan 28, 2018
12,955
134,680
67
Sarasota, FL
idk to me this is not unlike a wine shop selling bottles that they’ve aged in their cellar or whatever

Anytime you use a logo, trade name, etc. from some other entity, you need to seek their permission. If this guy came up with his only label, using the SG product is not a problem. Using their brand label, name, etc as his own without SG's express written consent is very likely a violation of SG's Trademark and Copyright rights. If they find out, it is possible if not likely this guy will be hearing from their Attorneys. It may be what he is doing is so trivial to them they don't care. Most large companies, however, make it a point to care.

I can tell you this. If someone or another entity were attempting to sell one of my products in a similar fashion without my knowledge and approval, they would be receiving a stern warning from my Attorney within a week and a lawsuit would be filed within a month if they chose to ignore it. And they would lose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sablebrush52

Johnny_Pipecleaner

Part of the Furniture Now
Nov 13, 2019
583
2,984
Mill Valley, CA
tbh I don't really care about the legality of it. I appreciate what he's doing, and I'm excited to receive my order.

He's not doing anything sneaky or underhanded here, and I think that's the main thing (at least for me the consumer). I wouldn't support a blender that was doing immoral deeds, but this is just a technicality that will likely go by unnoticed.

This is not what he does as a whole, but rather a one-off thing that he did in short supply that was only on sale for all of about one hour. He's probably not making a great deal of money off of this ($16 per 50g includes shipping), and any money he is making is coming mainly via his reputation, and not the fact that the product has an SG label on it. Although I do recognize the success and reputation of SG/FVF certainly plays a role as well, but he paid SG for these products so they have received their fair share.
 
  • Like
Reactions: artvandelay007

Johnny_Pipecleaner

Part of the Furniture Now
Nov 13, 2019
583
2,984
Mill Valley, CA
@Johnny_Pipecleaner - so did whoever resold the tin did they open it first and modify the contents in some way by the addition of something/some process?

”This is a project two years in the making. I took bulk Full Virginia Flake from Samuel Gawith used a special process to re-introduce active heat based fermentation to mature it even further.

You will notice some ‘dusting’ on the flakes due to the evaporation from the sweating process leaving minerals/sugar behind.

This is a specially prepared creation that I am happy to share.“
 
  • Like
Reactions: artvandelay007

logs

Lifer
Apr 28, 2019
1,873
5,069
I haven't seen him reproduce someone else's logo though. That seems to be new. Mostly he just gives his reblends crazy titles and comes up with new art.
 

Johnny_Pipecleaner

Part of the Furniture Now
Nov 13, 2019
583
2,984
Mill Valley, CA
He buys in bulk and then modifies it.

Isn't this what most blenders do though? Buy bulk product from someone else, then modify it and resell it.

I see your point about the label, but in this case he didn't add any additional components or even modify it in a major way, so it would be weird to give it a completely new name/label.

I know nothing about this industry though, so I could very well be wrong. Just my thoughts.
 
Jan 28, 2018
12,955
134,680
67
Sarasota, FL
Interesting. Personally, if I was the creator of FVF, I would be more bent out of shape if someone was selling my stuff with their own label/name on it, and hiding the fact that I actually created it.

And you have every right to feel that way. But that doesn't mean that's how the actual Trademark, Copyright and Patent laws are written and enforced. There may very well be an issue with him "repackaging" and reselling SG's products as well. In fact, I suspect there is. That one I'm not sure of.

People are simply not free to casually use someone else's work product for their own profit. Not only that, what if in his efforts to "reprocess" the SG products, he inadvertently introduces some toxin or harmful mold which subsequently injures or even kills some smokers? with SG's name on the product, do you think they would benefit by such a thing? Arguably, they could even be named in subsequent lawsuits. There are all kind of reasons there are laws to protect against this kind of behavior.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.