Ignition Beer – how IP sparked a social enterprise

Beer and innovation have been intimately connected throughout human history. In the UK, a quick glance at the register of trade marks confirms beer occupies a pivotal position in the development of economic creativity. In fact, the first trade mark registered in the UK was for beer – the famous ‘Bass’ triangle.

Fast forward to 2020 and Ignition Beer, Sydenham’s hippest social enterprise, takes its place among the three million trademarks that have been registered since.

Co-created by Will Evans and Nick O’Shea, their brainchild, Ignition Brewery wasn’t inspired by a desire to produce the perfect gastro-pint. Nick told us:

94% of people with learning difficulties can’t get work. If you ask people with learning difficulties what they’d most like to have, they say ‘a job'. We approached brewing, not from the point of view of taste, but with job creation in mind. But the nature of business is such that nobody wants to run a bad one. The fact that there’s increasing demand for our beer is testament to the commitment of our staff. Our beer is great.

Global local

For Will Evans, a social enterprise has three basic characteristics. It relies on its own income for its financial stability, profits are reinvested in the enterprise and part of what the business does must produce social benefit.

An unconventional family, the Ignition Team

At Ignition Beer this benefit is clear. The brewery employs only people with additional learning needs. Ignition’s employees get what they need most, jobs and all the self-esteem and team spirit that go with them. Will said:

We’re an unconventional family. Ignition Brewery is a charming place to work but it’s real work. We sell 95% of our beer through our Tap Room at the Sydenham Centre on Sydenham Road. Most of our customers come from within a mile of the brewery. We’ve created a ‘local’ that has widespread appeal.

Since its inception in 2015, Ignition Brewery has been featured by the World Service, Radio 4. It has attracted the attention of national and local press and been visited by government ministers. The Campaign for Real Ale cites Ignition Brewery. It is also part of the Social Brew Collective, a collaborate of beer makers that help raise awareness for social enterprises within the brewing industry.

UK trade mark 3146968

Ignition’s trademark and brand were developed from the outset as Will explained:

A trade mark defines who you are. Without trade mark registration the value created by Ignition Brewery’s beer, its unique tap room, and the staff who transform it into a place of a character in a world of featureless one-size-fits-all brands, would dissipate.

Our trademark encapsulates our values and experiences. As our brand develops, and people experience what we can do, our trademark has become a symbol for our journey. It’s a powerful calling card and it enables our customers to share our experience, they are part of our team.

Ignition’s first brewed

Like many businesses, Ignition Brewery’s immediate plans to expand are on hold, but not for long. Ignition’s all-encompassing ethos, linking social enterprise brewing with social ale drinking, is uncomplicated and timeless. A Babylonian accountant would get Ignition Brewery.

Social enterprises need IP strategies

A 2017 government report counted 471,000 social enterprises in the UK, employing 1.44 million people. Nearly 9% of small businesses in the UK are social enterprises. The appeal of social enterprise lies in the fact that they combine the objective of achieving social/environmental benefits with the excitement of running innovative and creative business.

Additionally, the flexibility in the ideas of what social enterprise might become and how social entrepreneurs might perform, gives creatives and inventives the wiggle room they need to practice the alchemy of innovation. According to the report:

social enterprise employers reported higher levels of innovation, were more optimistic with regard to longer-term growth prospects (over three years), and more open to advice and external information.

For social entrepreneurs, awareness of the crucial role IP registrations perform in transforming good ideas into tangible value is vital. To capitalise on their innate innovative qualities, social enterprises need IP strategies at the heart of their businesses, from the moment of ignition.

Trademark Infringement Cases and Trademark News

The most complex legal battles faced by UK brands are often to do with trademarks. When new companies launch, they must make the decision as to whether or not to legally trademark their brands. Failure to do so can lead to difficult and costly disputes. Equally, they must undertake thorough research to avoid infringing on the trademarks of other brands.

“Your brand is an asset, not just a name,” said Gavin being interviewed for Law Absolute. “For some businesses, it’s all about the brand and it’s the brand that people pay for – just look at the fashion industry. It’s also a large part of what a buyer of the business will pay for if the company is sold.” According to Gavin, trademarks are essential: “New companies should always register a trademark to protect their brand, whatever their business.”

Companies can trademark words, slogans designs, numerals, shapes, smells, sounds and colours. As Gavin explains, a registered trade mark is not just a valuable commercial asset, it also acts as a deterrent to potential copycats. He added: “Once a trademark has been registered, the owner has the exclusive right to use the mark and can take legal action against anyone who (in a nutshell) uses an identical or confusingly similar mark for the same or confusingly similar goods or services without permission.” READ MORE

Iconic Eddie Stobart trademark sold for £10 million

News & Star

The iconic Eddie Stobart trademark has been sold for £10 million and Stobart Group will change its name.

The Eddie Stobart brand and associated trademarks were owned by Stobart Group Brands LLP, a wholly owned subsidiary of Stobart Group.

It licensed the brand to Eddie Stobart Logistics in February 2014, with a £13.7 million fee attached, as part of the initial partial sale of the Eddie Stobart business.

The 15-year licence agreement provided the first six years – to February 29 of this year – royalty free.

From March, an annual £3 million licence fee was due, until 2029, but could be terminated by Eddie Stobart and was conditional on the logistics firm hitting targets.

However, in an update to the London Stock Exchange this morning, Stobart Group said: "The sale of the Eddie Stobart and Stobart brands now will result in an immediate cash receipt.

"It will also have the effect of helping investors and stakeholders to more easily differentiate between Eddie Stobart’s logistics business and Stobart Group’s aviation and energy businesses through Stobart Group transitioning to a different name."

Eddie Stobart will give Stobart Group an initial £6 million, then £2.5m on or before December of this year and the final £1.5m will be paid 36 months after the sale.

Stobart Group will change its name before February 2021. But, it said, a number of Stobart divisions will continue to use the brand for up to 36 months after completion and this will be licensed on a royalty free basis from Eddie Stobart Logistics.

Warwick Brady, chief executive of Stobart Group, said: "Stobart Group is proud of the brand it has built over many years. It is an iconic and highly recognisable name, associated with great customer service.

“However, the brand is primarily associated with the highly visible Eddie Stobart lorries.

"This has often created confusion for investors and other stakeholders between the Eddie Stobart Logistics business operations and Stobart Group's focus on developing a valuable London airport and a high margin energy business.

“By selling the brand now we can realise value for our shareholders and differentiate our businesses, establishing a new name that reflects our future in aviation and energy.”

Stobart Group's new name has not been revealed.

BrewDog vs The Lone Wolf Pub

BrewDog, the craft beer company that prides itself on a “punk” ethos, has been accused of acting like “just another multinational corporate machine” after forcing a family-run pub to change its name or face legal action.

The Guardian March 2017

The fast-growing Scottish brewer, which has burnished its underdog credentials with vocal criticism of how major brewers operate, recently launched a vodka brand called Lone Wolf. But it threatened legal action against a pub in Birmingham that opened under the same name, prompting allegations of bullying and hypocrisy from within the pubs and brewing community.

The brother and sister team behind the pub, Joshua and Sallie McFadyen, said they chose the name in 2015, before BrewDog unveiled its spirits brand. But they say they were too scared of the brewer’s financial muscle to fight back, deciding instead to change the name of their pub to the Wolf and adjust the signage and web page at their own expense.

Sallie McFadyen told the Guardian: “We had an email one day from their solicitors – and that was the first we knew of it – saying they had a trademarked spirit coming out. All our money has gone into refurbishing this place and getting it open and we don’t have the same money as they have. We were told we might have to incur their legal costs so we were panic-stricken.”

She said she and her brother chose the name the Lone Wolf because they had both previously worked for major pub companies and had decided to go it alone. They were also inspired by Sally’s dog, which “looks like a wolf”, echoing Brewdog’s own name, which is based on co-founder James Watt’s dog.

But they have been left disappointed by BrewDog’s decision to pursue them with the threat of legal action.

“It’s devastating because it was quite personal why we called it Lone Wolf,” Sallie McFadyen said. “We’ve come round to it now but it is a bit hypocritical because they make a lot of public statements saying how much they support independence and they don’t like a big corporate attitude. It seems to go against what they stand for and it was done in such a harsh way.”

Brewers and beer-lovers denounced BrewDog on social media for threatening an independent pub with legal action over the Lone Wolf name:

BrewDog has raised money through an “Equity for Punks” scheme that allows drinkers to invest in return for shares and benefits such as discounts in its bars.

But its credentials as a challenger brand were called into question by beer industry figures, including brewers such as Walsall-based microbrewery Backyard Brewhouse, which labelled the Scottish company “just another multinational corporate machine”.

BrewDog declined to comment.

The company’s protection of its trademark is particularly surprising given that its founders have previously scorned copyright complaints against them.

Last year the company disputed a trademarking claim from the estate of Elvis Presley, which took issue with Brewdog’s Elvis Juice beer. In a statement on the firm’s website, it said: “Here at BrewDog, we don’t take too kindly to petty pen pushers attempting to make a fast buck by discrediting our good name under the guise of copyright infringement.”

BrewDog was also told it might face legal action from Wolverhampton Wanderers football club over claims that the branding for Lone Wolf is similar to the club’s own wolf’s head logo.

Some drinkers vowed never to let a drop of BrewDog’s beer pass their lips again in protest at its actions:

Drinkers who want to find BrewDog’s range won’t be able to do so at the Wolf. “To be honest it’s got nothing to do with that [the legal threat],” said Sallie McFadyen. “We try to keep to small breweries.”

BrewDog recently told its Equity for Punks shareholders that it is in talks with a major new investor, amid speculation that it is preparing to float some of its shares on the stock market.

Latest: BrewDog backs down over Lone Wolf pub trademark dispute due to public outcry

Starbucks vs Sambucks

ABC News

Starbucks has not been one to shy away from trademark battles with considerably smaller adversaries. The world’s largest coffee chain once went after a restaurant in British Columbia because it was called HaidaBucks and took a Texan bar owner to court over a beer he brewed and sold named Star Bock. Sam Buck Lundberg, a coffee shop owner in the small town of Astoria in Oregon, didn’t have long to wait for her Starbucks order when she used her name to brand her shop “Sambucks”. Starbucks sent her a cease and desist letter and reportedly offered her $500 (£400) to rebrand, but when she didn’t comply the case went to court. In 2005, a judge ruled in favour of the coffee giant, ordering her to drop the name “Buck” from everything in her store, including the coffee cups and the front window.

Instagram insists littergram app is renamed

Instagram has ordered the owner of a British anti-litter app to change its name.

Littergram invites people to share pictures of rubbish and report the location to their council.. Lawyers for the US photo-sharing giant, which was bought by Facebook for $1bn (£629m) in 2012, said the name was "not acceptable". Owner Danny Lucas has sent Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg a video asking him not to "kill" his project. Mr Lucas, 48, from Wrotham, Kent tried to register his brand littergram in December 2015 and has since met lawyers for Instagram to explain his campaign. He said his mission was to make littering as anti-social as drink-driving and to educate children.

Instagram v Littergram and other corporate name battles

Iceland v Iceland: The bitter trademark dispute erupts

Independent

Under European trademark law it is possible to obtain wide-ranging protection for a single word such as “Apple”, “Google” or “Gucci” – which gives the owner the exclusive right to use the mark in commercial contexts in the EU. Single words like these can, over time, develop a great deal of brand power, so much so that consumers are willing to pay a premium to purchase the branded goods. Most of the time brands in the marketplace do not generate controversy.

But whenever the potential for consumer confusion arises, competing businesses often go to war over trademarks. Prominent recent examples include chocolate maker Lindt and sweet company Haribo going to court over the “Gold Bear” mark and the continuing dispute between Asos and Assos.

This leads us to the fascinating current battle between the Icelandic government and “Iceland”, the UK-based but South African-owned supermarket chain. Iceland Foods – the supermarket that specialises in frozen food – was granted the EU-wide trademark for the word “Iceland” in 2014.

The effect of this has proven to be controversial in the country of Iceland – which is not a member of the EU, but is a major exporter of frozen fish and seafood to the EU – because native companies claim they are being restricted from promoting their Icelandic goods due to the existence of the frozen food specialist’s EU-registered mark. “Iceland Gold”, an Icelandic fish company, and “Clean Iceland”, a specialist seller of Icelandic national products, have reportedly had trouble doing business in the EU due to the supermarkets ownership of the trademark.

The Icelandic government has now begun legal proceedings to cancel the trademark at the EU Intellectual Property Office in Alicante, Spain.

Importantly, the Icelandic government has stressed that it is not seeking to force the supermarket to register a new name for its core business – what it is seeking to do is end the supermarket’s right to assert the Iceland trademark to block their companies from using “Iceland”.

The government of Iceland is concerned that our country’s businesses are unable to promote themselves across Europe in association with their place of origin – a place of which we are rightly proud and enjoys a very positive national branding. Iceland Foods, meanwhile, has countered by saying: “We have been trading successfully for 46 years under the name Iceland and do not believe that any serious confusion or conflict has ever arisen in the public mind, or is likely to do so.”

Twelve years in the making

One significant factor that could count against the Icelandic government’s legal challenge is that the application for the Iceland trademark – granted in 2014 – was actually filed by the supermarket chain back in 2002. The reason it took 12 years before the mark was granted was that the application passed through a lengthy and rigorous “opposition” process, which involved the weighing up of the various pros and cons of allowing the mark from various perspectives, most notably the possibility of consumer confusion arising between the “Iceland” mark and any prior existing marks. Given that Iceland (the country) does not itself seem to own any conflicting trademarks in the name Iceland, it’s hard to see how the Icelandic government can raise any grounds that have not already been dealt with during the application and opposition period from 2002 to 2014. Colourful signage. Nonetheless, the dispute brings up a pertinent question: should it ever be possible to register the name of a country, regardless of what the business is involved in and whether or not there is any likelihood of confusion? Interestingly, trademark law already mandates some strict restrictions based on nationality – in accordance with Article 3(2) of the EU Trademark Directive and Article 6 of the Paris Convention – that national flags and emblems cannot be registered as trademarks. In other words, the flags and symbols of a nation must be excluded from registration.

But there is nothing in the law to stop the name of a country becoming a trademark – as has happened in the present case. Given the energy and resources that will necessarily have to be expended by Iceland (the country) and Iceland (the company) in order to continue this fight, we can only hope that the two parties are able to come to some settlement that allows the supermarket to continue using its well-known brand and, at the same time, allows Icelandic companies to take advantage of their country’s reputation for excellent seafood, fish and other goods.