Can we post Anti-Social Woes here?

[draco664]

No, that doesn't sound right. Would they be Social Anti-Woes?

Anyway, the most reasonable, civil and polite Cease & Desist letter ever.

Summary : Author commissions a book cover - bases it heavily on the classic Jack Daniels brand.

JD send a letter explaining that their brand is important, and they must defend it. As such, they'd be much obliged if for the next print run, the author commissioned a different cover. Oh, and they'd be happy to chip in for the costs involved.

When did sanity return to the world? I might just have to go and buy a bottle of JD to celebrate.

[Canarr]

Damn; that's classy.

[jackfaire]

Not to mention they just increased the value of the first run exponentially. If they have to change the cover then the original cover becomes more valuable because it can't ever be re released.

[Greenday]

It's a pretty blatant ripoff of the JD brand. No doubt about that. Just nice to see them start out in a kind, polite manner.

[Duelist925]

Wow. Man. I hope this catches on. This is a wonderful little dose of sanity in this world.

[HYHYBT]

The thing that gets me is that it would have been so simple to do a *similar* design without duplicating the exact pattern of lines.

[SongsOfDragons]

I know! I had to check over and over again that this wasn't a fake or a hoax and I'm still waiting for the HAHA to come!! It's wonderful ^^

[ngc_7331]

Very classy. I don't drink, so instead I'll raise my can of Vanilla Coke in salute.

The US Olympic Committee could learn a thing or two.

[PepperElf]

so wait? JD offered to pay for the cost of changing the cover?


Although I think that's very polite of them... I find it interesting. Mainly because I know of many other products that pay homage to the JD logo. Hell there's even a military shirt sold here that's printed with a JD-like logo. Granted it's not really "for profit" since the profit of military items goes towards specific funds, but... why a book and not everyone else too?

[TheHuckster]

so wait? JD offered to pay for the cost of changing the cover?


Although I think that's very polite of them... I find it interesting. Mainly because I know of many other products that pay homage to the JD logo. Hell there's even a military shirt sold here that's printed with a JD-like logo. Granted it's not really "for profit" since the profit of military items goes towards specific funds, but... why a book and not everyone else too?

Who knows if this is a PR stunt by Jack Daniels and/or the author. It certainly caused some buzz and both JD and the author are benefiting from some publicity from it.

Of course, in a few weeks, nobody will know how to buy the book because they won't recognize the cover.

I know there have been cases in the past of strange trademark issues. The 1970s band Chicago was originally called Chicago Transportation Authority before the CTA actually sued them to change it. I really don't understand cases like these because I thought trademarks were mostly enforceable within one's industry or similar industries. Books/Liquor and Public Transportation/Music Bands are both very dissimilar.

[draco664]

so wait? JD offered to pay for the cost of changing the cover?


Although I think that's very polite of them... I find it interesting. Mainly because I know of many other products that pay homage to the JD logo. Hell there's even a military shirt sold here that's printed with a JD-like logo. Granted it's not really "for profit" since the profit of military items goes towards specific funds, but... why a book and not everyone else too?

Did they pay royalties to use the logo? Perhaps that's it.

[Canarr]

I really don't understand cases like these because I thought trademarks were mostly enforceable within one's industry or similar industries. Books/Liquor and Public Transportation/Music Bands are both very dissimilar.

It's mostly a matter of precedent. If nobody is allowed to use your trademark, then you can just work with C&D letters - much less hassle legally. If you allow one or more entities to use the trademark, because you figure you don't care about some books, then any future entity you *do* want to keep from using your trademark can point to that exception and say, "But he's allowed to use it! You're discriminating against me!" - a lot more legal hassle.