jogeephus

Which one is a b@st@rd? The company making money off the reputation of the dead moonshiner, or the 900 pound gorilla of a company over zealous about protecting their brand? Neither one is exactly lily white if you ask me.
 
MO_cows":2zpestua said:
Which one is a b@st@rd? The company making money off the reputation of the dead moonshiner, or the 900 pound gorilla of a company over zealous about protecting their brand? Neither one is exactly lily white if you ask me.


Since when does anyone OWN the shape of a bottle. Come on!
 
Reminds me of the "North Face"/ "South Butt" debacle. In my opinion if your product is what you say it is, you should have nothing to fear from competition. Do your best and move along
 
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases. Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change.
MO_cows":3e76on01 said:
Which one is a b@st@rd? The company making money off the reputation of the dead moonshiner, or the 900 pound gorilla of a company over zealous about protecting their brand? Neither one is exactly lily white if you ask me.

Why shouldn't Mrs. Sutton make money off her husband's work? I think it was good of Hank Williams Jr. and a few other country singers to come to her aid and make the Sutton business legitimate in the eyes of the law. Not everyone can afford the high up front tax required to make liquor that won't make you blind.

I do have to lean toward Jack Daniel's argument though because I feel the same way toward all of you who are blatantly raising four legged cattle like I do. I'm in agreement with Jack Daniels and think you should send me all of this years receipts from your cattle sales.

I definitely will not be buying any Jack in the future. Of course hadn't planned on it anyway because its pretty foul stuff of course what can you expect a preacher to know about making liquor.
 
Seems to me Jack Daniels should be sued for making something that looks a lot like moonshine. Have not tried any of there shine but would say its pretty nasty.
 
3waycross":vp1thedr said:
MO_cows":vp1thedr said:
Which one is a b@st@rd? The company making money off the reputation of the dead moonshiner, or the 900 pound gorilla of a company over zealous about protecting their brand? Neither one is exactly lily white if you ask me.


Since when does anyone OWN the shape of a bottle. Come on!
281px-Coca_cola_Bottle.png

Tabasco_bottle_2013.jpeg

product_shot_120021.gif


Here's three I know of...
 
I guess my question would be did Jack Daniels patent their shape or copyright it? I have at least two other whiskey bottles on my shelf with more than a passing resemblance to the square bottle of Jack. In fact i have two different shaped bottles of Jack.

To me at least their suit seems punitive and not realistic. Why have they not seeked an injunction against Wisers or Revelstoke?
 
I think its ridiculous. First they send the ATF agent that burnt up all those women and children to mess with Popcorn and sentence him to a long stretch in the pen even though he was on his deathbed then the big corporate guys want to mess with his wife.

Its disgusting.

How bout these bottles.

jim-beam-bottels.jpg


all-shadow.png


evanextraaged.jpg


Just hope the Vlasic Pickle Company isn't offended by this packaging.

 
3waycross":1o9e20yn said:
I guess my question would be did Jack Daniels patent their shape or copyright it? I have at least two other whiskey bottles on my shelf with more than a passing resemblance to the square bottle of Jack. In fact i have two different shaped bottles of Jack.

To me at least their suit seems punitive and not realistic. Why have they not seeked an injunction against Wisers or Revelstoke?
Probably trying to intimidate them into changing the bottle or outright drive their costs up and make them less competitive. I'm sure JD has the money and the attorneys to take this far enough in court to hurt smaller distillers. In fact this could be more of a message to other small competitors to stay out of their market. If you look at what craft beer has done to the larger beer brewers these kind of lawsuits could be intended to discourage that trend in the distillery business.

Customer {Edited} Consumer loses when this happens.
 
Jogeephus":2l196g77 said:
MO_cows":2l196g77 said:
Which one is a b@st@rd? The company making money off the reputation of the dead moonshiner, or the 900 pound gorilla of a company over zealous about protecting their brand? Neither one is exactly lily white if you ask me.

Why shouldn't Mrs. Sutton make money off her husband's work? I think it was good of Hank Williams Jr. and a few other country singers to come to her aid and make the Sutton business legitimate in the eyes of the law. Not everyone can afford the high up front tax required to make liquor that won't make you blind.

I do have to lean toward Jack Daniel's argument though because I feel the same way toward all of you who are blatantly raising four legged cattle like I do. I'm in agreement with Jack Daniels and think you should send me all of this years receipts from your cattle sales.

I definitely will not be buying any Jack in the future. Of course hadn't planned on it anyway because its pretty foul stuff of course what can you expect a preacher to know about making liquor.

I don't know the back story of the company, just as a general rule I don't hold with milking a dead person's fame for more money from their fans/followers. For example, Elvis makes more money now than when he was alive because of how Priscilla manages the "brand", people making money off of Michael Jackson, etc. It just seems distasteful to me.

People can kid themselves all they want to, but that new legal, sanitary Sutton brand shine is NOT the same thing as what he made out in the woods.
 
I agree with you on the Jackson Elvis point but I don't think this is anyway like that. They railroaded the man and used him as a scapegoat. It was so blatant many of the famous country singers came to his wife's aid and they set up the legal still.

As for it not being the same, it surely is. Its simple chemistry and as long as they use the same yeast and the same ratios in the mash its what it is. Alcohol.
 
Brown Forman is a giant. They can bring a lot more $ to this fight than Popcorn's widow.
This is silly, on their part. They should offer the widow many millions for her business. Then they'd be a lot less sensitive to this stuff.
 
Jogeephus":1et3xujf said:
I agree with you on the Jackson Elvis point but I don't think this is anyway like that. They railroaded the man and used him as a scapegoat. It was so blatant many of the famous country singers came to his wife's aid and they set up the legal still.

As for it not being the same, it surely is. Its simple chemistry and as long as they use the same yeast and the same ratios in the mash its what it is. Alcohol.

Well that is a disappointment. I would have thought that wood smoke versus gas fired, Sutton's homemade paste sealing the joints, different year and different field grain crops, temperature variations while the mash was fermenting, all those little things would make a difference versus the controlled conditions of a factory still. Takes all the mystique right out of it. Bummer.
 
If you want to split hairs then yes you are right. Even Jack Daniels has variations from barrel to barrel that is why they have the testers who tinker with it to get it to the taste they want. I'm speaking in terms of safeness. Untaxed alcohol is just like taxed alcohol. Its alcohol. Most of the founder's of this nation made whiskey or beer and it didn't become "dangerous" until they outlawed it. Heck, in Alabama it is still illegal to make beer at home but you can marry your cousin.
 
CB, be sure the taxes were paid on it else you'll surely go blind or the ATF might burn your house down. You are Free to drink it once the tax has been paid. It'll be safe then.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top