The legal Perspective? Nowadays that’s a joke right? I mean....Nevernind. ?
Ken Byron’s Extra Mature FVF
- Thread starter Johnny_Pipecleaner
- Start date
- Status
You know... I just don't shop for things looking to see if someone is breaking a trademark or copyright law. And, if I saw someone breaking a law like that, I don't think that it would even cross my mind "not" to buy it based on something like that.
But, I do understand that if you saw someone else breaking "your" copyrights or trademarks, that it would make a difference. And, I would empathize... as I was putting it in my cart and using my credit card to buy it, I would think "it's just a shame."
There are people who collect fake Rolex watches, and even folks that collect fake Dunhills. Heck, I would be more likely to buy something that was a fake Disney than to pay real Disney prices for that stupid mouse stuff, just because they had the balls to do it.
But, I do understand that if you saw someone else breaking "your" copyrights or trademarks, that it would make a difference. And, I would empathize... as I was putting it in my cart and using my credit card to buy it, I would think "it's just a shame."
There are people who collect fake Rolex watches, and even folks that collect fake Dunhills. Heck, I would be more likely to buy something that was a fake Disney than to pay real Disney prices for that stupid mouse stuff, just because they had the balls to do it.
Not sure I can agree with this kind of thought process. Some great things in history have come out of making mistakes...Penicillin and Viagra are just 2 off the top of my head.
I'm a practicing attorney, and I'm not at all certain that KVB's aging and reselling of FVF (with an additional stamp on the label) violates any right of Samuel Gawith. Intellectual property law is very complex, and it's impossible to determine the legal implications of this issue without a thorough understanding of IP law. At the very least, I would not be willing to jump to the conclusion that KVB's actions are illegal.
I would be surprised if SG has any kind of patent on the process used to produce and age its Virginia flakes since they are well-know for their use of what amount to antique manufacturing techniques, and I also have doubts as to whether KVB adding a stamp to an SG label constitutes any sort of trademark infringement, as the additional stamp does not seem likely to confuse the consumer or in any way dilute the uniqueness of SG products. It's not much different than my local liquor store purchasing a barrel of a well-known bourbon and then adding the liquor store's unique "single barrel" label to the bottles before resale, which is a common practice.
I have plenty of clients who have received demand letters about all sorts of things, and many of those letters (after conducting proper research) are ignored, and rightfully so.
I should probably also clarify that there might be a big difference between getting a bunch of SG tins, aging them in tact, and then reselling after adding a small "KVB Extra Matured" sticker as compared to unpackaging the SG blends, aging them, and then repackaging them and printing new labels bearing the SG logo etc. Ultimately, legal issues often hinge on such seemingly minor nuances.
I'm more than satisfied with the bourbon I've bought from buffalo trace, but I also enjoy it in an old fashioned. Just because you enjoy something 1 way doesn't mean that it cant be enjoyed another.
True, this is the detail that would cause the most trouble in the imaginary court case that we've all drummed up here.
As someone eluded to earlier in this shitshow though, Life is more enjoyable with a policy of assuming the best scenario/intentions by default (rather than suspecting everyone is upto no good). In this context I'm guessing that all permissions were asked and received before going into this venture, because why wouldn't he.
But some folks enjoy creating imaginary fights - "I'll tell you one thing, if he tried that shit with me boy I woulda... and then I'd have... and they'd never try that again, I can sure promise you that..."
well we are all on an internet forum...........
I take it you're also not certain the other way. If they were to go to court, KVB or whoever it is could prevail. However, I suspect you would agree that if he doesn't have a pre existing agreement in place with SG, they would have valid reason to file a suit against him and tie him up with some very expensive litigation. Hundreds of times more costly than what he could ever hope to make from the sales he may make from reselling their products before they would even make it to court.
As an attorney, I would also expect you'd agree the majority of the civil suits never make it to trial so it isn't about what is technically legal or not. I pass up collecting small amounts owed my company every year because it doesn't make sense to take a $1000 debt to court whether you're 90% sure you'll win or not. By the same token, if someone acts like a complete ass, I may decide to let our attorney loose on them just because it may be worth a couple of thousand to me to make the prick feel the pain. The reality is, I mostly make purely pragmatic decisions which I suspect may be what SG would do even if they're aware of what this guy is doing.
It's also possible this fellow contacted SG and did it the correct way. All just speculation at this point.
I think the reason this thread went off course is because it's about Ken Byron and there is certainly some deeply seeded dislike here on the forum for him, for some reason unbeknownst to me.
Wait, why does anyone care whether this guy has violated this one little law, when we all violate about twelve laws by selling tobacco at all? This is getting ridiculous. I mean, I would understand if it were violating some friend of mine's company. But...
But, if someone in Alabama sold a tin of tobacco, any f'ing brand, to someone in Illinois or Georgia, or anywhere, we haven't paid taxes on it, nor registered as a seller (or manufacturer) of tobaccos, or paid the tobacco taxes, the receiver then has a tin with no state tax stamp on it, and so many laws have been violated.,.. why is this one stupid trademark law got you all pissed... it's not even really a law, it is merely a protection of sorts that is only enforceable by the owner... if you called the police they would laugh their asses off at you. But, tell the police that someone sold you a tin of tobacco from out of state. Then someone would get the cuffs and backseat ride, knocking your head on the top of the doorjamb for good measure. Enjoy that aroma while you wait on someone to bail you out...
Besides, this is all conjecture. We have no idea, and it doesn't even involve any of us. The guy who does this magic aging trick with tobacco isn't on this thread, and Samuel Gawith or one of it's millionaire CEOs is not on this thread...
But, if someone in Alabama sold a tin of tobacco, any f'ing brand, to someone in Illinois or Georgia, or anywhere, we haven't paid taxes on it, nor registered as a seller (or manufacturer) of tobaccos, or paid the tobacco taxes, the receiver then has a tin with no state tax stamp on it, and so many laws have been violated.,.. why is this one stupid trademark law got you all pissed... it's not even really a law, it is merely a protection of sorts that is only enforceable by the owner... if you called the police they would laugh their asses off at you. But, tell the police that someone sold you a tin of tobacco from out of state. Then someone would get the cuffs and backseat ride, knocking your head on the top of the doorjamb for good measure. Enjoy that aroma while you wait on someone to bail you out...
Besides, this is all conjecture. We have no idea, and it doesn't even involve any of us. The guy who does this magic aging trick with tobacco isn't on this thread, and Samuel Gawith or one of it's millionaire CEOs is not on this thread...
I like to collect fake religious experiences!!! Oh shit, Wrong Forum.??You know... I just don't shop for things looking to see if someone is breaking a trademark or copyright law. And, if I saw someone breaking a law like that, I don't think that it would even cross my mind "not" to buy it based on something like that.
But, I do understand that if you saw someone else breaking "your" copyrights or trademarks, that it would make a difference. And, I would empathize... as I was putting it in my cart and using my credit card to buy it, I would think "it's just a shame."
There are people who collect fake Rolex watches, and even folks that collect fake Dunhills. Heck, I would be more likely to buy something that was a fake Disney than to pay real Disney prices for that stupid mouse stuff, just because they had the balls to do it.
Again, we are still going under the assumption that it was done without Samuel Gawith's permission. We don't know that. Let's let SG worry about SG. This in no way diminishes their quality blends or taints their good name.
Personally I think he's almost a genius or at least has a good head for blending and aging. I have purchased several of his blends and have not been disappointed once, but have been pleased every single time.
He does some pretty crazy things with GREAT tobaccos and sells it for an upscale price in small quantities. Genius.
The stuff is out of stock in just a few days. He markets using scarcity which, in a niche market. Genius.
Of course, you have to have the quality to back it up, which in my opinion he does. More power to him, I say! The feds will eff this all up soon enough so enjoy it while it's available.
Live and let live.
Personally I think he's almost a genius or at least has a good head for blending and aging. I have purchased several of his blends and have not been disappointed once, but have been pleased every single time.
He does some pretty crazy things with GREAT tobaccos and sells it for an upscale price in small quantities. Genius.
The stuff is out of stock in just a few days. He markets using scarcity which, in a niche market. Genius.
Of course, you have to have the quality to back it up, which in my opinion he does. More power to him, I say! The feds will eff this all up soon enough so enjoy it while it's available.
Live and let live.
That's not how I interpreted what you posted (not that there is anything wrong with that line of thought). I was merely providing a counterpoint to it. Obviously my interpretation was incorrect.
Then, I guess the person to call would be Leo Loughlin who is the D.C. attorney listed for the Samuel Gawith trademark. I'm not calling, Leo, though. I can't afford his rates.
Yeah, I pretty much agree with everything you said there.
Because so many of us pipe smokers are nerds who enjoy thought exercises
I enjoy the academic side of the law, in addition to the more practical considerations that @hoosierpipeguy described well in his post above
I do have a little bit of skin in this game. I have owned a tobacco company (i.e) Standard Tobacco of PA that owned the trademarks to several blends that you all enjoy on this forum. One of our directors and my associate is a member of the D.C Patent Bar and we do a lot of trademark law outside of general securities counsel work. If you had reproduce our trademark (i.e) our tin art without our permission even if you are giving it away free then that is an absolute no no. In the trade it is know as diluting the trademarks value. In terms of the discussion here I don't have a dog in this fight but I would assume since this is not a volume thing he probably has some form of understanding with the trademark owner. If you think about it he has to buy the stuff from SG in the first instance and if he is a reseller he must have a license from the ATF bods so in all seriousness unless he is buying tins from his local B&M I would doubt anyone would expose themselves to such downside for a business that at best could be classified as a hobby due to the limited amount of production. I am sure the stuff would not agree with my unrefined tastes but gentleman continue your discourse!
- Status