An Albuquerque television station reported Route 66 Historic Trail legislation winding its way through Congress may help a Grants, New Mexico, microbrewery in its trademark lawsuit from a European company.
The microbrewery is Henry Lackey’s Route 66 Junkyard Brewery at 1634 Route 66 in Grants. As previously reported, the microbrewery was sued late last year by Lodestar Anstalt, a Liechtenstein company that contract-brews a Route 66 Beer in the non-Route 66 state of Wisconsin, that claims to own the “Route 66” trademark and name for its beer.
Lackey, citing the fact his business is on Route 66, has vowed to fight the lawsuit. He faces a trial in January.
Here’s the latest twist in the case, via KRQE-TV:
[…] Hope came last week when Senator Tom Udall, D-New Mexico, introduced federal legislation to designate Route 66 as a national historic trail.
Although the act doesn’t specify how it would handle trademarks, Sen. Udall said in a statement that he wants the bipartisan legislation to help small businesses along the mother road.
Lackey hopes that means reviewing and analyzing trademarks granted with the Route 66 name.
“If it prevents anybody else from getting trademarks on this American icon that would be great,” Lackey said. “I am optimistic that we can win this lawsuit.”
Lackey says even if it doesn’t help his legal battle, he hopes it will help future business owners wanting to use the Route 66 name.
The TV station’s entire segment may be viewed here:
At the risk of sounding like a Debbie Downer, I am skeptical the Route 66 National Historic Trail legislation, even if it becomes law, will help Lackey’s case. Very skeptical.
Lodestar’s lawsuit is a trademark-infringement case, and the suit will have to be decided on those merits. Lackey has given a pretty strong case against Lodestar already, and he undoubtedly will bring up this other angle in court:
[…] “Route 66” and the Route 66 shield are in the public domain in the United States and are not subject to copyright or trademark. Other lawsuits in the U.S. failed for that reason. “Route 66” and the shield are trademarked in Europe, but since Route 66 Junkyard Brewery isn’t shipping beer there, it isn’t a problem for it.
Lackey likely has enough evidence to persuade a judge to toss the lawsuit. The effect Udall’s bill will have on the suit appears to be nil, unless I’m missing something. But the bill probably won’t be needed for it anyway.
Swa Frantzen, creator of the Historic Route 66 website, posted these suggestions on Facebook in the interim:
Best we all can do is twofold:
1. support those who get hit with a lawsuit (e.g. by being a customer of theirs)
2. boycott any product or service that has the little “®” in the Route 66 shield: buying such a thing is effectively sponsoring those who sue others.
(Image of Route 66 Junkyard Brewery logo via Facebook)
Route 66 Beer puffs “This cross country trip became a cultural icon and a monument to crazy Individuality.” By its own admission “Route 66” is already “a cultural icon” and “a monument” – so how can its brewer claim any commercial right to either? How can it claim such a right to a road number? Does the US Transportation Department (or whoever) not own some copyright to the shield and number sign? The Mount Rushmore figures are “a cultural icon” and “a monument”. Does the brewer think it could market Mount Rushmore Beer with impunity – the sculptors surely have some artistic rights. And as for claiming Route 66 Beer to be “This classic American beer traces its recipe back to the era of bold, full flavored beer that dominated the heartland of the US in the mid-20th Century” while calling it an “India Pale Ale” has me asking does the brewer know anything about the origin of the term India Pale Ale or its British history. This so-called India Pale Ale has as much right to the name as any wine maker has the right to call any sparkling wine made outside the Champagne region of France champagne. It is nothing more than commercial opportunism. What next? Donald Trump India Pale Ale?