Court Case result

[Tadcaster resident]

Just published in York Press

http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/9155716.JUST_IN__Result_announced_in_beer_war_of_the_roses/

[OnTheDrink]

Just published in York Press

http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/9155716.JUST_IN__Result_announced_in_beer_war_of_the_roses/

So, no real winner, other than the lawyers.  I'm pleased that the ruling regarding the Cropton-brewed M&S Yorkshire Bitter appears to pave the way for any brewer to use the white rose 'to denote the Yorkshire origin of the beer'.

[devastatedrelative]

Doesn't seem as though the judge really understood that there was no way on earth Humph would compromise or go to mediation.  See last paragraph of press article.

However, it does say that SS won a partial victory.  As a yorkshire person I can't see how Humph can try and monopolise my county's white rose (even if it is upside down). 

Yet again money talks.

[OldBreweryDrinker]

As already mentioned, looks like money has taken over this court case. With a partial victory for Humphrey and his brewery. Awaiting the next development as to the payment to SS if any.

[OnTheDrink]

As already mentioned, looks like money has taken over this court case. With a partial victory for Humphrey and his brewery. Awaiting the next development as to the payment to SS if any.

I would hope that Hizzonner will take the sensible approach and award 'derisory damages' of 1 penny, as he's already said there was no actual confusion over the trademark, so SS hasn't lost out at all.

[ademapearl]

Sorry to see that Cropton brewery have not won a clear cut victory out of this court case. However, the judge seemed to have some very cutting remarks about the protagonists, I guess mainly directed towards Sam Smiths, on the lines of 'why did this case ever need to get the rools royce treatment of the high court?' Any normal company would be hanging its corporate head in shame after such a telling off, but I fear it will not stop the brewery from bringing out the heavy artillery against any other poor sod who dares to cross Humphrey's path. Only a pity that with everything else going on in the world at the moment, the national press has not picked up on this case and its background.

[pintplease]

Wake up, trade mark/logo disputes end up in court all the time, Sam Smiths is no different than any other business that will defend its trade marks and logo's.
The outcome of the case should not be a surprise to anyone. Croptons must have been given some poor legal advice if they thought for a minute that they could win this one.
The Yorkshire Regiment (although a different argument but linked ) had already told Cropton  that they did not have permission to use their logo and Cropton appears to have ignored that as well.
The Regiment could have and maybe still might challenge Cropton over that issue.

In this instance Sam Smiths were correct in their challenge.

[garybaldy72uk]

Ok so If Humph now Claims to Own right to the White rose He Might want to challenge LUFC (its on the Badge)  The Highways agency its On Signs and The Stone Rose on the M62) and so on and so on .... Pathetic!

I just wish the Man would get a grip and Concentrate on running a Brewery rather than Stupidty as to Who owns the white rose.

The Guy is a MORON!

[OnTheDrink]

In this instance Sam Smiths were correct in their challenge.

But they still haven't won the right to sole use of the Yorkshire Rose to indicate a geographical origin. This means anyone can use it on beer, but not in the way Cropton did on the Warrior label.

[pintplease]

Ok so If Humph now Claims to Own right to the White rose He Might want to challenge LUFC (its on the Badge)  The Highways agency its On Signs and The Stone Rose on the M62) and so on and so on .... Pathetic!

I just wish the Man would get a grip and Concentrate on running a Brewery rather than Stupidty as to Who owns the white rose.

The Guy is a MORON!

garybaldy72uk.   Sam's or anyone cant claim to wholly own the yorkshire white rose.
What Sam's can and does claim is to own it as a  trade mark of their ale, so any competitor using the said rose to sell ale will be likely to be using it unlawfully.

Other companies not involved in selling ale will not be in conflict with Sam's if they use the same rose.

My view is let businesses argue it out between themselves as to their rights or wrongs,
none of the arguments will benefit or effect  the customer one way or the other.

I am afraid that the anti Sam's theme that is the essence of this site tends to cloud the
judgement/opinions of contributors to this debate. Which includes "name calling" 

[jboycott]

You may as well give it up pintplease, you're banging your head against a wall!

[OldBreweryDrinker]

I agree 

[minsterman]

.. the anti Sam's theme that is the essence of this site tends to cloud the
judgement/opinions of contributors to this debate. Which includes "name calling"

I'm sure I don't need to remind you - that before this website existed, an 'anti-staff, anti-managers, and anti-customers' has, and continues to remain the 'theme' of Mr H Smith!!! I'm sure if that had been different, then this website wouldn't have evolved (or continued to do so) in the first place. 

As to whether arguments between businesses have any effect on customers - well actually they can do - and in some instances have been the precursor to a company undergoing a radical change.

And finally, on the subject of 'name calling'..

Sadly, Mr Smith rarely hides his name calling of others - which possibly in his eyes (and words), unless you are of some wealth or considered high social status you are "Tap Room Class" 

[pintplease]

I am all for open debate but when name calling is used it does really take away any valid point that the contributor may have made.
The anti Sam's theme I referred to tends to mean that some posters will attack Sam's
on any issue just because its Sam's.  Trade mark disputes hit the courts all the time so Sam's are no different to any other company on that matter.

I am not a Sam's employee but can appreciate the arguments that managers have about their terms and conditions and the company should recognise that problems exist and if not dealt with only get worse. Its in everyone's interest to have good working relations including Sam's  but the name calling doesn't help. Sam's should appoint someone with a specific remit to build bridges amongst its staff. I know that's unlikely but its only management that can take the initiative to resolve the ongoing problems. Ideally the company should sit down with the union representing managers to find a way forward. There are times when we have to swallow our pride to move forward and Sam's should consider that, I know posters will say it will never happen and maybe not but at the end of the day Humphrey is a business man and he wants a successful business.   

[moleinahole]

..at the end of the day Humphrey is a business man and he wants a successful business.

Do you honestly believe that?