Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 106 to 112 of 112

Thread: Let's talk Whisky!

  1. #106
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Fremont, CA, U.S.A.
    Posts
    47,947

    Nope

    Mini bottles of Fireball aren't actually whiskey, leading to a lawsuit

    Marysville, United States - June 13, 2012: Studio shot of a bottle of Fireball brand cinnamon flavored whisky. Fireball is a whisky-based liqueur made by the Sazerac Company. It has gained popularity for tasting like an Atomic Fireball candy in a liquor form. (drial7m1 via Getty Images)
    2.4k
    Emily Heil
    Fri, January 20, 2023, 4:37 PM PST·3 min read
    People buying small bottles of Fireball at their local convenience store might be surprised to learn that they're not getting the same as the stuff that comes from the liquor store - and that difference is at the center of a lawsuit in which a customer is suing the maker of both beverages.

    "Fireball Cinnamon Whisky," the spicy-hot booze sold in liquor stores, is the drink most people are probably more familiar with. But "Fireball Cinnamon," which is available at grocery stores, gas stations and other places that are not permitted to sell liquor, is something else. The drink, which debuted in 2020, is actually a malt beverage flavored to taste like whiskey; it's sold in small bottles that usually go for 99 cents.

    A recent lawsuit filed against Sazerac, which makes both, claims that the convenience-store version is misleading, because the packaging is almost identical to its boozy older sibling, and one would have to read the very fine print on the bottle to know that it wasn't just a smaller version of the popular liquor. "The label misleads consumers into believing it is or contains distilled spirits," according to a class-action lawsuit brought by Anna Marquez, an Illinois woman who claims she purchased the small bottles assuming they contained whiskey.

    Malt beverages are made by fermentation and are often categorized with beer and wine (popular examples include Colt 45 and hard seltzers). Distilled spirits, like whiskey, are typically more tightly regulated.

    The lawsuit takes issue with the way the malt-beverage version's label describes its ingredients: "Malt Beverage With Natural Whisky & Other Flavors and Carmel Color." The lawsuit calls this a "clever turn of phrase" meant to trick consumers into thinking the drink contains whiskey and not just a whiskey flavoring. Shoppers "will think the Product is a malt beverage with added (1) natural whisky and (2) other flavors," the filing says.

    The filing cited local news stories about the appearance of what seemed to be mini Fireball whiskey bottles in settings where liquor isn't usually sold, underscoring its claim of a common misconception. "You can't buy wine, or any other hard liquor at any stores like this, so why is Fireball OK?" one Hudson Valley radio personality wrote. "Yes it's convenient for Fireball drinkers, but what about vodka drinkers, or bourbon fans, I want to see a Tito's display right next to the Fireball . . . LOL!"

    The lawsuit, which claims the company violated state consumer-fraud statutes, is seeking to cover anyone in Illinois, North Dakota, Wyoming, Idaho, Alaska, Iowa, Mississippi, Arkansas, Kansas, Arizona, South Carolina or Utah who purchased Fireball Cinnamon. It seeks unspecified statutory and punitive damages, although the filing states that the amount would likely be over $5 million.

    The lawyer representing Marquez and others in her class is Spencer Sheehan, a plaintiff's attorney famous for filing hundreds of class-action lawsuits against food companies. Sheehan is sometimes called the "Vanilla Vigilate" for his litigation over products that contain artificial vanilla and not the real thing. His other cases have included one against Frito-Lay for not using enough real lime juice in its "Hint of Lime" Tostitos and another alleging that Kellogg's strawberry Pop-Tarts contain just as much apple and pear as they do the titular fruit.

    A representative for Sazerac, the maker of Fireball, said the company would not comment on ongoing litigation.
    I knew it. Fireball is wrong on so many levels
    Gene Ching
    Publisher www.KungFuMagazine.com
    Author of Shaolin Trips
    Support our forum by getting your gear at MartialArtSmart

  2. #107
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Fremont, CA, U.S.A.
    Posts
    47,947

    Bad Spaniels

    The Supreme Court ponders a surprisingly difficult case about poop jokes
    A case about a silly, poop-themed dog toy is also a case about free speech and judicial humility.

    By Ian Millhiser Mar 22, 2023, 8:00am EDT

    Chocolate banana poo emoji macaroons. Steve Russell/Toronto Star via Getty Images
    Ian Millhiser is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court.
    The Supreme Court will take a break on Wednesday from the unusually political mix of cases it decided to hear during its current term, to consider a case about poop jokes.

    Jack Daniel’s v. VIP Products asks whether VIP Products, the nation’s second-largest maker of dog toys, infringed upon the whiskey maker’s trademarked bottle shape and label when it sold dog toys that resemble a bottle of Jack Daniel’s. The dog toy, named “Bad Spaniels,” juxtaposes imagery drawn from the whiskey maker’s trademarks with a gag about a dog dropping “the old No. 2 on your Tennessee carpet.”

    Jack Daniel’s seeks a court order prohibiting VIP from continuing to sell this toy.


    Petitioner’s brief in Jack Daniel’s v. VIP Products
    Jack Daniel’s is, on the surface, a very silly case, which prompted some very silly attempts by the whiskey maker’s lawyers to explain why their client is so offended by this dog toy. Sample quote from their brief: “Jack Daniel’s loves dogs and appreciates a good joke as much as anyone. But Jack Daniel’s likes its customers even more, and doesn’t want them confused or associating its fine whiskey with dog poop.”

    Lurking below the surface, however, are very serious questions about the First Amendment. And about how far courts should go in second-guessing Congress’s decisions about how to balance the needs of the marketplace with the demands of free speech. VIP has strong legal arguments that it should prevail in this case, but Jack Daniel’s also raises strong claims that the lower courts did too much to undermine federal trademark law.

    Trademark law — that is, the body of law giving companies an exclusive right to use the imagery associated with their brand to market their products — necessarily limits free speech. Only McDonald’s, for example, may use its trademarked golden arches to sell hamburgers, and only Nike may use its trademarked swoosh simply to sell shoes — which creates a risk that companies may sometimes go overboard in filing lawsuits seeking to protect their trademarks.

    And yet, we give companies like McDonald’s or Nike a monopoly over such commercial uses of their trademarks because the marketplace would function less reliably if consumers cannot readily identify which products are genuine Big Macs or Air Jordans, and which ones are knockoffs.

    Additionally, the Court explained in Park ’N Fly v. Dollar Park and Fly (1985) that “trademarks foster competition and the maintenance of quality by securing to the producer the benefits of good reputation.” Because Pepsi, and only Pepsi, can use its distinctive labeling to market its products, Pepsi has a clear incentive to ensure that any beverage that uses that labeling will be high quality — because, if the quality suffers, consumers will know not to buy anything that uses Pepsi’s trademarked red, white, and blue label.

    The specific legal questions that arise out of the Jack Daniel’s case are difficult, in part because federal trademark law sometimes permits companies to sell products that parody a famous trademark. But the federal appeals court that heard this case largely bypassed the hard questions that arise under federal statutes, and instead held that the First Amendment places strict limits on a company’s ability to protect its own trademarks.

    Federal trademark law, however, already strikes a careful balance between the demands of the First Amendment and the benefits all of society gains from allowing companies to clearly and consistently brand their products. And it is far from clear why the appeals court should be allowed to upset that balance.
    continued next post
    Gene Ching
    Publisher www.KungFuMagazine.com
    Author of Shaolin Trips
    Support our forum by getting your gear at MartialArtSmart

  3. #108
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Fremont, CA, U.S.A.
    Posts
    47,947

    continued from previous

    The Lanham Act, briefly explained

    Jack Daniel’s argues that the Bad Spaniels dog toy violates the Lanham Act, the primary federal law governing trademarks, in two ways. The dog toy allegedly “infringed” Jack Daniel’s trademarks by using imagery that consumers would associate with the whiskey maker and not with pet products. And it allegedly “diluted” Jack Daniel’s trademarks by “associating them with dog poop” and other imagery that the whiskey maker does not want consumers to think about when they see a bottle of Jack Daniel’s.

    A trademark owner will prevail in an infringement claim if they can show that some other party used their trademarked imagery in a way that “is likely to cause confusion” about whether a particular product is being sold by the trademark owner. Imagine, for example, a soda manufacturer that sells “Popsi” cola, and that markets it in red, white, and blue cans similar to Pepsi’s branding. Pepsi would almost certainly prevail in a trademark infringement suit against the makers of Popsi because consumers could very easily mistake this newcomer cola for the more venerable brand.

    Similarly, the classic Eddie Murphy comedy Coming to America features a straightforward case of trademark infringement.

    Dilution suits, by contrast, allow the owners of a “famous” trademark to prevent its imagery from being used in ways that might cause “tarnishment” of their brand. This is the core of Jack Daniel’s complaint that it does not want consumers “associating its fine whiskey with dog poop.”

    These twin protections against infringement and dilution exist to protect the benefits trademarks provide to all consumers. If a trademark can be too easily infringed, then consumers may have no way of knowing which products are actually made by Jack Daniel’s (or any other company), and which ones are potentially inferior knockoffs. And, if trademarks can be too easily diluted, then companies may lose their incentive to ensure that their branding is only associated with high-quality products.

    After all, why go to the trouble and expense of making a tasty and consistent product if consumers are just going to associate your product with dog poop?

    Yet, while the Lanham Act provides robust protections for trademark owners, it also recognizes that there will be some instances where the First Amendment should trump a company’s desire to control its branding and keep it free of negative associations. A leftist political organization, for example, may want to incorporate several famous corporate logos into a pamphlet criticizing capitalism. Or a journalist may want to use an image of McDonald’s golden arches in a hypothetical newspaper article that reveals embarrassing information about McDonald’s labor practices.

    This kind of political speech is at the heart of the First Amendment, and has historically been given the highest level of constitutional protection.

    Accordingly, the Lanham Act contains several provisions ensuring that companies cannot wield their trademarks as weapons to cut down essential speech. The law, for example, explicitly forbids companies from bringing dilution suits against “all forms of news reporting and news commentary” and against “any noncommercial” use of a trademark — thus protecting journalists and anti-corporate activists. In some cases, the Lanham Act also protects speech “parodying” a company or its products from dilution suits.

    Similarly, courts have long understood that parodies of famous trademarks enjoy some protection against infringement suits because most consumers are smart enough to tell the difference between an authentic product and a joke seeking to mock or ridicule that product. As one consumer said in Louis Vuitton Malletier SA v. Haute Diggity Dog (2006), a lower court case that is strikingly similar to Jack Daniel’s and which involved dog toys made to look like handbags, “if I really thought that a $10 dog toy made out of fluff and stuff was an actual Louis Vuitton product, [then] I would be stupid.”

    The makers of Bad Spaniels, in other words, have strong legal arguments that they did not violate the Lanham Act. The dog toy is clearly a parody. And is anyone really going to confuse a poop-themed dog toy with an actual bottle of whiskey?

    That said, Jack Daniel’s does have a stronger trademark dilution claim than Louis Vuitton did in its case, which involved dog toys marked with the words “Chewy Vuiton” and which didn’t associate Louis Vuitton’s brand with feces.

    Unfortunately, however, the lower court that decided the Jack Daniel’s case bypassed these legal arguments, instead ruling that the First Amendment provides such extraordinary protections to companies like VIP Products that trademark law could cease to function effectively.

    The lower court made it “nearly impossible” for trademark owners to enforce their trademarks

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which heard the Jack Daniel’s case before it reached the Supreme Court, applied an unusually expansive reading of the First Amendment. Under the Ninth Circuit’s decision, when a work that infringes upon a trademark engages in “artistic expression,” then a trademark owner’s attempt to enforce the Lanham Act will nearly always fail.

    As one federal judge explained, this approach is so protective of the free speech rights of trademark infringers that “it appears nearly impossible for any trademark holder to prevail.”

    One reason why is, as Jack Daniel’s argues in its brief, “all trademark uses are expressive, by owners and infringers alike.” The whole point of a trademark is to associate a particular product with the company’s efforts to market that product, and with whatever reputation that product has earned in the marketplace. Similarly, the whole point of infringing a trademark is to try to falsely convey to consumers that the infringing product is just like the properly trademarked product.

    In any event, Congress struck a perfectly sensible balance between the advantages society as a whole gains from protecting trademarks and the demands of free speech when it wrote the Lanham Act. As explained above, the law protects the very sort of political and other noncommercial speech that enjoys special protection under the First Amendment.

    There’s also one other reason to prefer the balance struck in the Lanham Act to the one struck by the Ninth Circuit. The Lanham Act was enacted by the people’s representatives in Congress assembled. The Ninth Circuit’s decision, by contrast, is the product of a few lawyers in black robes.

    Again, under the legal rules laid out in the Lanham Act, VIP Products has strong arguments that it sells innocent, obvious parodies that do not violate federal trademark law. They can potentially win this case without having to upend decades of law establishing that free speech and trademarks can coexist. The Ninth Circuit’s rule, by contrast, could eviscerate the very real benefits that society derives from trademark law.

    As the Supreme Court said nearly 150 years ago, “the right to adopt and use a symbol or a device to distinguish the goods or property made or sold by the person whose mark it is, to the exclusion of use by all other persons, has been long recognized by the common law and the chancery courts of England and of this country.” The United States has a long history of protecting both trademark rights and free speech. It’s unlikely that a bunch of unelected judges will come up with a better way of protecting both of these important interests than the Lanham Act.
    This is too funny...
    Gene Ching
    Publisher www.KungFuMagazine.com
    Author of Shaolin Trips
    Support our forum by getting your gear at MartialArtSmart

  4. #109
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Fremont, CA, U.S.A.
    Posts
    47,947

    Blair Castle c.1833 Scotch Whisky - the oldest known Scotch whisky in existence

    Gene Ching
    Publisher www.KungFuMagazine.com
    Author of Shaolin Trips
    Support our forum by getting your gear at MartialArtSmart

  5. #110
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Fremont, CA, U.S.A.
    Posts
    47,947

    Kavalan

    Taiwanese Whisky Maker, Kavalan, Is Making Waves in the U.S.
    Kavalan's Distillery Select expression was crafted at the behest of American bartenders.

    By Meredith Heil
    Meredith Heil is a seasoned journalist covering food, drinks, travel, and culture. Her bylines have appeared in The New York Times, Bon Appétit, Condé Nast Traveler, Departures, and others. She is currently the editorial director of Thrillist Travel.

    Updated on September 25, 2023

    Japan is not the sole world-class whisky producer in Asia; Taiwan is steadily establishing itself as a nation with remarkable expertise in production and distillation techniques.

    Since 2006, Yilan County whisky giant Kavalan has been chugging away at securing Taiwan a spot on the international spirits map. To date, the company’s increasingly crowded trophy shelf showcases a bevy of prestigious awards, including platinums and golds from the International Review of Spirits and multiple “World’s Best” titles at World Whiskies Awards, among others. If you know anything about Taiwanese geography, these accolades come as no surprise. Yilan’s surplus of fresh, clean, ice cold spring water makes it comparable to Scotland’s famed Speyside region, and the weather, a reliable mix of Kentucky-style heat and humidity in the summers and UK-style damp cold in the winters, causes the whisky to mature quickly, efficiently, and consistently. It’s the best of both boozy worlds.

    Before the 2018 release of Distillery Select — the company’s first moderately priced and cocktail-friendly creation — Kavalan intentionally kept their line way up on the tippy top shelf, focusing on perfecting their art rather than flooding the market.


    COURTESY OF HOTALING & CO.
    “Since we launched in the U.S., we’ve had many suggestions and comments from the U.S. consumers, mostly mixologists and bartenders, saying that they would like to create cocktails with Kavalan,” Master Blender Ian Chang explained during a 2018 media presentation at the distillery. “But the thing is, even with the Classic or with the Concertmaster, which are the two, I would say, most entry-level single malts from Kavalan, they find that the cost is still too high. They wanted something affordable but also suitable for high-quality cocktails.”

    Specifically formulated for the U.S. market, Distillery Select was designed to fit those needs. A good cocktail spirit demands versatility, and in order to ensure the final product was as mutable as it was tasty, Kavalan departed from the barrel-focused aging process that made it famous. Instead of letting their booze sit in casks well-saturated with the port, sherry, bourbon, or rum that originally filled their wooden bellies, a practice common among European-style distilleries not bound to Bourbon’s one-and-done barrel rule, Distillery Select only saw the insides of second- or third-use barrels resulting in a smoother, more delicate, and unadulterated taste.

    “With Kavalan Distillery Select, what we try to showcase is the most fundamental qualities of Kavalan — the fruitiness, a bit floral, with this very nice honey type of character — without too much influence from the previous fill and without too much influence from the cask itself,” Chang noted. “Inside, you can nose a very nice green apple, mango, cherry, and also pineapple. And on top of that, you have honey and vanilla, without too much influence from the wood. The woodiness, I think, is just the right amount. It’s lighter and more fragrant. Our domestic bartenders, they find this one very good for mixing with cocktails. It has become an instant hit.”

    How to Store High-End Whisky
    That’s not all to say Distillery Select is mixed drinks or bust. “But if you don't like cocktails, this one is also perfect to be enjoyed neat or with water,” he continued. “I find this one really easy drinking, very, you know, smooth and mellow, that's all. At 43% alcohol, even a beginner will find this fairly easy to appreciate.”

    Another thing that’s easy to appreciate? The price tag. “Our cheapest [release] in the U.S. used to be, I think, $89.99, and then the next one is $99.99. But this is $59.99,” explained Chang. “In terms of price, I think this is going to be very competitive. Personally, I describe it as our Model Three. Our Tesla ... you know, but not recalled.”

    “Before, Kavalan was all about quality but not quantity,” the blender added. “I think for the future, we can have both quality and also quantity.”

    Buckle up, Louisville, and hang onto your kilt, Islay. Taiwan has officially entered the ring.
    Haven't tried this yet. Anyone?
    Gene Ching
    Publisher www.KungFuMagazine.com
    Author of Shaolin Trips
    Support our forum by getting your gear at MartialArtSmart

  6. #111
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Fremont, CA, U.S.A.
    Posts
    47,947

    Old Oak Irish Whiskey


    OLD OAK IRISH WHISKEY

    OUR PARTNER

    JEAN-CLAUDE VAN DAMME
    We are proud to announce Jean-Claude Van Damme as founder and partner of Old Oak. As a legendary martial artist and actor, Jean-Claude embodies the strength, character, and precision that are synonymous with Old Oak.

    His passion for perfection and attention to detail make him the perfect representative of our brand. Join us in raising a glass to Jean-Claude Van Damme and the legacy of Old Oak Whiskey.

    "I am very proud and honoured to be founder and partner of Old Oak Whiskey"
    Motion Picture Artist Jean-Claude Van Damme

    ****. I gotta try this.

    Let-s-talk-Whisky!
    Van-Damme!!!
    Gene Ching
    Publisher www.KungFuMagazine.com
    Author of Shaolin Trips
    Support our forum by getting your gear at MartialArtSmart

  7. #112
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Fremont, CA, U.S.A.
    Posts
    47,947

    The World’s Most Valuable Whiskey Collection

    The World’s Most Valuable Whiskey Collection—According To Guinness World Records
    Brittany Anas
    Contributor
    I cover travel, specializing in adventure and the great outdoors.


    Oct 26, 2023,01:15am EDT

    The entrance to The Grand Whisky Museum in Singapore.THE GRANDE WHISKY MUSEUM

    If you’re a whiskey lover, destinations like Scotland, Japan, and Kentucky are all probably high on your list of places to imbibe in between distillery tours. But you might want to add Singapore to the short list of great whiskey destinations. That’s because The Grande Whisky Museum in Suntec City, Singapore is the keeper of not just the world’s most valuable bottle of whiskey, but it also boasts the most valuable whiskey collection, according to the Guinness World Records.

    The Guinness-adjudicated whiskey that was awarded the “most valuable” title is a bottle of Laphroaig 40-year old from 1960 that’s signed by Prince Charles and Camilla, the Duke and Duchess of Rothesay, now King Charles III and Queen Camilla. The bottle was signed during the royal couple’s visit to the distillery on the Isle of Islay in June 2008. The Laphroaig is valued at $2.56 million U.S. dollars, according to the Guinness World Records.

    As for the museum’s complete collection, which includes more than 7,000 rare and vintage whiskies? Its value registers at $91.12 million US dollars, according to Guiness.

    A Guinness World Record adjudicator verified the museum’s collection a year ago, but the certificates were awarded to The Grande Whisky Museum (TGWM) during a ceremony on Oct. 25, 2023.

    Singapore is a cutting-edge city known for its futuristic architecture, superb gardens and museums, plus rich culture. Now, tourism officials are hoping that the Southeast Asia island will be a destination for whisky enthusiasts who come to sip a dram in its high-end bars and visit the museum.

    The 8,000 square-foot museum has sourced whiskies from distilleries around the world, including some that have shut down. Museum officials claim to own one of the world’s largest private whisky collections that’s also available to the public to see and sip. The collection is shrouded in some mystery, though, with bottles stashed behind steel vault doors and a strict “no photos” policy.


    Tasting room at the Saint-Louis House at The Grand Whisky Museum in Singapore.THE GRAND WHISKY MUSEUM
    Passport: Explore the finest destinations and experiences around the world in the Forbes Passport newsletter.

    Museum ambassadors lead multiple tours a day, diving into whisky traditions from around the world, highlighting Scotland’s famed distilleries and the history of whisky production in Japan. Afterwards, visitors can enjoy a “Whisky Tasting Experience.”

    TGWM features a luxury Saint-Louis House lounge for VIP members and a lounge for the general public. The venue also overlooks the Suntec City Fountain of Wealth, a large bronze fountain that puts on synchronized music and light shows and that received its own Guinness record back in 1998 when it was deemed the world’s largest fountain. (The Palm Fountain in Dubai now holds the Guiness record).


    The Fountain of Wealth illuminates at night in Suntec City, Singapore. Built in 1995, it was once ... [+]GETTY
    The Grande Whisky Museum has been a serious and renowned collector of rare and vintage whiskies for more than two decades, says Manjit Gill, group managing director of The Whisky Trust Group, which owns the museum.

    “It is proud to showcase its collection to the world and has developed a global reputation as a genuine rare whisky collector,” Gill said in a press statement announcing the Guiness distinction.

    Distilleries bottle special casks and editions for the museum, so visitors can see bottles that they’d be hard-pressed to find elsewhere, he says.

    Art lovers, too, can appreciate the whiskey collection, which includes hand-blown glass bottles, hand-painted porcelain sets, and designer crystal bottles. Some of the whiskey bottles are signed by Master Blenders or even royalty.

    Guinness has awarded several records in the world of whiskey, including a determination of the oldest whiskey, which, the record agency says, is a bottle of Baker’s Pure Rye Whiskey distilled in 1847.


    Brittany Anas

    I was struck with wanderlust at an early age. As a curious kid, I’d go to the library and flip through the atlas and encyclopedias, imagining I was traveling to far-off places. My grandma bought my fictional travel stories for $1 apiece. After graduating from the University of Colorado and working as the editor-in-chief of the campus newspaper, I spent more than a decade in daily newspapers, reporting and writing. I also did a brief stint as a federal background investigator before becoming a full-time travel and lifestyle writer. I’ve been a contributor to publications like Men’s Journal, American Way, Apartment Therapy, Simplemost, Better, TripSavvy, Livability, AAA publications, Reader’s Digest, The Denver Post, Yoga Journal, 5280, and more. I’m based in Denver, Colo., and I enjoy writing about adventure travel and the great outdoors. I also love finding quirky travel stories, and I am always on the hunt for a great spicy margarita.
    Next time I'm in Singapore...
    Gene Ching
    Publisher www.KungFuMagazine.com
    Author of Shaolin Trips
    Support our forum by getting your gear at MartialArtSmart

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •