I will drink to that.
Smart move on their part. I'm pretty shocked they offered cash to help change the cover design. One of the best things I've seen posted to this site in a long time!
Really? You're shocked that they'd spend a couple of hundred dollars to buy themselves a book author as a small time publicist?
They basically copied it verbatim.
It isn't like it was coincidence; take a look at them side-by-side. The book author replaced some text, everything else is a perfect match.
It appears to be the exact same link, I wonder why this wasn't automatically de-duped?
When opposing sides get heated, lawyers win. This letter seemed to calm the fire down. It's all class, and more effective as a result.
They can allow the use and have included a statement that the mark is used by permission of the mark owner (whatever it is they are claiming is their registered mark). Or they can require that the claimant makes a statement that they are not associated with Jack Daniels and any similarity of the mark is incidental.
Jack Daniels as an alcoholic beverage doesn't lie in the same Nice classification as literature and so doesn't really infringe. There is no passing off, no trademark infringement just a similarity in design style which is mostly likely a copyright infringement; which again JD could allow if they wished without any prejudicial effect on any other threat of litigation they wish to proffer in the future.
The lack of the brand name and the product name are rather key to the mark as a whole wouldn't you say?
I never heard back.
They are serious business, but, if some of these cases can be handled as humanely as the OP's example, a lot of people could sleep better at night.
Kudos to Jack Daniels - though I much prefer Bakers.
I should add that in the end it was handled amicably and we came to a compromise on some of the original requests (dribbble etc.)
I can only remember seeing Ben & Jerry's doing this with a C&D request before, but I'm sure there have been at least a couple more companies willing to forego "more effective" intimidation for the "small" chance of creating an ally. It seems to me to have more to do with an overwhelmingly strong culture in those companies to be great at what they do rather than beating everyone else at what they do. Kudos to Christy Susman and anyone else that gave her the freedom to make these choices instead of taking the "easy" way. It gives me hope.
What I am not so impressed about is that the author then uses the whole situation to peddle his book. It seems to me to be against the whole spirit of the letter in the first place.
If the defendant were selling alcoholic drinks, fair dos.