Here is a link to a blogpost about the most polite ‘cease and desist’ letter you will ever read.
My initial reaction was to doubt the letter’s authenticity; but the blogpost at the link appears to be credible.
My next reaction was that such a letter (whether authentic or not) should be put on the wall of every IP attorney as a model. As I was taught as a junior litigator at Herbert Smith, the strongest legal letters are often the least aggressive. (I did a post about how awful litigation letters can be at The Lawyer in January.)
However, the recipient boasts that he will not be accepting the money to change the cover of the current print run and on the digital version. One wonders if a more robust letter would have had more immediate effect. Perhaps the letter was too polite in that regard?
Nonetheless, it is still very pleasant to see a litigation letter in such terms on an intellectual property matter. So if the letter is genuine, due credit and much respect to its author, Christy Susman, the “Senior Attorney – Trademarks” at Jack Daniel’s.
(But I do wish Americans would write “trade marks” correctly – it is two words…)
5 Responses to Jack Daniel’s write a polite letter
Leave a Reply
To be fair, although the writer states that they won’t be taking Jack Daniels’ money to change the cover, I think it’s ambiguous as to whether that means they won’t be changing it quickly or whether they will, but paying for it out of their own pocket.
I took “*Good news if you already own a copy of Broken Piano for President: that baby’s going to be a collector’s item. ” to mean that they are redoing the cover just not taking any of Jack Daniels’ cash for doing so.
Brilliant letter. My next whisky purchase will be a Jack Daniels, in gratitude for such a thoughtful approach.
However, I do wonder why JD should have registered their marks in the same class as books fall under. Are they publishers as well as distillers?
Big brands if they’re smart these days are cognisant of the likelihood of communication like this ending up in the public domain. Especially perhaps if they’re talking to people calling themselves The Lazy Fascist Press. To take a less cynical view though, the letter seems sincere and I do love the Southern gentlemanly-ness of it.
Private Eye often publicises such letters under the heading “Sad way to make a living”. I doubt whether the book cover’s parody of their label is an infringement. I am reminded of the case Mattel vs MCA Records concerning Aqua’s song “Barbie Girl”, which Mattel lost at every level, including finally the Supreme Court.
Further, I disagree with the lawyer who wrote the letter. He is right that in general misuse of their brand should be avoided. But he has failed to spot that in this case the bookcover doesn’t weaken their brand, it strengthens it and gives them free publicity. The same was true with the Barbie Girl song, much as Mattel refuse to acknowledge it.