Public Defender Dept: Capn Jimbo defends the Painkiller

Now's here's the real stuff - traditional, cleans your socks on the way down. Unlike the Royal Navy, the pirates drank while eating, sailing and fighting - the first multitaskers. Here's to Port Royal, the Port of Orgies! Say it loud and say it plowed!
Post Reply
User avatar
Capn Jimbo
Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
Contact:

Public Defender Dept: Capn Jimbo defends the Painkiller

Post by Capn Jimbo »

There's mooseshit and then there's monkey shit, and then there's just plain...


A web/blog site called "Umamimart" (here) is presided over by yet another barstool "expert" who like the Frozen Wonder, thinks that skimming the Wiki amounts to a Harvard Law degree, recently held forth, and forth and forth in a vain and condescending attempt to dump on Pussers for defending their good name against another super faux-Tiki bar who attempted to capitalize on Charles Tobias thirty plus years of investment in Pussers Rum and their signature trademarked "Pussers Painkiller.

Since I abhor such unjustified attacks I could not help but speak in Pussers defense yet again. Out of deep respect for readers, I eliminated about 90% of the author's useless blather, and reproduce here my posted (but not yet approved) reply to his article (linked above)...
Moi:


If you can't fight with facts, then baffle em with BS... lots of it. Volume of verbiage is not an argument. For the sake of readers, let's consider this mega-author's key claims.

Re Trademark (the primary issue)

1. "Note that there’s no specific recipe being protected here."

But there is, it's published and it specifies either 2, 3 or 4 oz. of Pussers.

2. "Pusser’s trademark is certainly not akin to that of Coca-Cola, which involves a product with a secret recipe."

Silly. Nowhere in the trademark regulations or considerations must a recipe be secret.

3. "Nor did Pusser’s come up with the name. Worse yet, the Painkiller recipe predates the existence of the company by a decade".

Apparently this brilliant polemicist is confusing "first use" with "first filing". In trademark law first filing takes precedece. Even so, Charles Tobia/Pussers received permission and approval from the then owner of The Soggy Dollar.

4. "For one, this seems to suppress competition, not enhance it the way trademark law is intended to do."

The author attempts rewrite history and fact: the trademark was duly considered, any opposition had more than sufficient opportunity to object and did not do so. The trademark was granted. Accordingly this small producer, now protected, was able to invest millions of dollars promoting his property - the Painkiller - thus making it famous enough and long enough that the Ron-come-lately wished to profit from Pusser's investment. To the contrary, trademark protect encourages especially smaller companies to invest, to grow and to complete. The author is kidding.

5. "Up until a week ago I believed Pusser’s was the original rum in a Painkiller... even Jeff Berry, with his immense knowledge of tiki drinks was fooled.."

This has no bearing, see "first use" vs "first filing" above. It doesn't matter what anybody believes, the trademark and formula speaks for itself.

6. "First, and in defense of Pusser’s, they rightly claim that not enforcing their trademark in instances of potential infringement leaves them vulnerable... True as that may be, it’s still a tough sell when you weren’t the creator of the trademark."

Again, confusing "first use" with "first filing". The author attempts to rewrite history by stating that Pussers wasn't the "creator of the trademark". Silly boy - the "creator" is the entity that files for, and is awared the mark. The Soggy Bar never filed, never objected and in fact approved the actual creator/filer, Charles Tobias to do so. BTW, Tobias' formula was NOT the Soggy's, but was/is unique to Pussers.

7. "PKNY and other high quality establishments that serve Painkillers often use other rums besides Pusser’s."

Which means they are not creating a Painkiller, but a substitute. Running the red light and getting away with it does not make it legal. Silly.

8. "Contrary to their ridiculously sounding claim on the Pusser’s website that their product is “The Single Malt of Rum,” the truth is that many bartenders and rum experts will tell you is that it flat out sucks."

Now the author leaves his self-created legal theory behind, and reveals himself as just another purveyor of cheap shots. There are just as many reviewers who prefer Pussers, and its rum equivalent of single malt purity, free of unlabeled additives and flavorings. The author's opinion is meaningless. I hate Coca Cola, and so does F. Paul Pacult. STFU.

Summary: the author knows only enough about the law to be dangerous. His arguments - voluminous as they are - are shallow, misinformed and delivered with ridiculous certainty and condscension. His final devolution to simple insults ("...it sucks") reveals his real agenda and talent. I'm completely unimpressed with this drivel..
Further affiant sayeth naught. Is this guy a self-serving nutcase, or not? You decide...
da'rum
Minor God
Posts: 957
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:09 pm

Post by da'rum »

So many arseholes so little time.
in goes your eye out
Post Reply