Today in 1915, US Patent 1125735 A was issued, an invention of Frank A. Schaum and Eugene F. Wales, for their “Keg or Container.” There’s no Abstract, but the description explains that the “invention relates to kegs or other containers and has for its object reinforcing devices for strengthening the container.” They continue. “A further improvement is devices for holding the hoops in place. These devices may be made part of the reinforcing structure.”
Patent No. 4720076A: For A Carbon Dioxide Gas Pressure Dispense System For Beer
Today in 1988, US Patent 4720076 A was issued, an invention of Roger J. Hyde, for his “Carbon Dioxide Gas Pressure Dispense System for Beer.” Here’s the Abstract:
A dispense tape (10) to control the flow of carbonated beers is configured to minimize pressure drop and turbulence in beer flow to an outlet nozzle (14) when open, the tap having flow restrictor means (52) operatively connected as a downstream extension of the tap valve (30), located in the path of beer flowing from the valve, arranged only to affect beer flow when the tap is nearly closed and configured to substantially restrict beer flow to maximize pressure drop and turbulence; choice of nozzle length/bore ratio enabling either a creamy flow or a squib of beer to be dispensed.
Beer In Ads #1439: The World Looks Brighter
Sunday’s ad is also for Schlitz, from 1942. So when, exactly, is it that “The world looks brighter?” Why, it’s when you discover “that famous flavor found only in Schlitz.” The other big news in the ad, buried at the bottom is the fact that they just debuted a new quart-size bottle, which they call a “guest bottle.” I wonder why they’d call the larger package a “guest bottle.”
Patent No. 356323A: Machine For Picking And Separating Hops
Today in 1887, US Patent 356323 A was issued, an invention of Franklin Leonard, for his “Machine for Picking and Separating Hops.” There’s no Abstract, and the description is hard to read, as well, but it’s a “new and improved Machine for Picking and Separating Hops from the Vines.”
Patent No. 2105776A: Beer Cooler Keg
Today in 1938, US Patent 2105776 A was issued, an invention of John Panagopoulos, for his “Beer Cooler Keg.” There’s no Abstract, but in the description, he explains that the “principal object of this invention is to provide a beer keg having a cooling coil positioned therein.”
Beer In Ads #1438: It’s The Little “Extras”
Saturday’s ad is another one for Schlitz, from 1952. It’s an interesting ad, focusing on “the little ‘extras’ that make Schlitz the best-liked beer in history.” They mention three “extra’s,” the “purity born of choice ingredients,” “delicacy of flavor,” and “that extra smoothness.” The artwork was done by Thomas Vroman, who’s more well-known for children’s books. I especially love the woman lying on the beach, with part of her visible through the glass of beer. That’s a cool effect, the way it’s drawn.
Alaska Barleywine Festival 2015 Winners
Here are the winners from this weekend’s Great Alaska Beer & Barley Wine Festival in Anchorage, Alaska.
- St. Elias Brewing’s Moose Juice, Soldotna, Alaska
- Midnight Sun Brewing’s Termination Dust Belgian-Style Barley Wine, Anchorage, Alaska
- Lagunitas Brewing’s Olde Gnarlywine Barley Wine, Petaluma, California
And the Best Winter Beer:
- Fremont Brewing’s Bourbon Abominable, Seattle, Washington
Congratulations to all the winners. Thanks again to Tom Dalldorf from the Celebrator Beer News, for sending me the winners.
Patent No. US 2731027A: Beer Dispensing Apparatus
Today in 1956, US Patent 2731027 A was issued, an invention of Carl L. Daun, for his “Beer Dispensing Apparatus.” There’s no Abstract, but in the description, he describes as an “invention relat[ing] to [an] apparatus for dispensing carbonated beverages without there by changing the gas content of the beverage while eliminating the losses customarily encountered in dispensing such beverages. He continues:
This apparatus is particularly useful in dispensing beer from barrels but is, as will be apparent, suitable for all liquids. According to present practice barrel beer is dispensed from a faucet connected to a tap rod projecting to the bottom of the barrel through a tap which serves to provide a fluid tight seal at the tapping hole. Beer is forced up the tap rod to the faucet by the gas pressure in the barrel. A pressure regulated gas (air or carbon dioxide) source is connected to the interior of the barrel through a gas check valve in the tap. Theoretically such a system will maintain the carbon dioxide gas content of the beer constant and the drawing should be uniform. In practice, however, various losses attributable to variations in the gas content caused by temperature and pressure deviations from the ideal are encountered to a greater or lesser extent.
Keep reading here.
Wine vs. Beer, Big vs. Small, More Trademark Woes
Opened in 2012, the tiny Cambria Beer Co. is located in the equally small town of Cambria, described more as a “seaside village,” boasting about 6,000 residents. It’s located along Highway 1, in San Luis Obispo County, midway between San Francisco and L.A.
The brewery uses a small 3bbl brew sculpture system, and operates a small tap room on Cornwall Street. They offer a wide variety of beer styles, continually rotating. A recent list included five on, with two in the fermenters and three more scheduled right behind those. Beers sell out quickly, but they try to keep up. Owners Aaron and Jennifer Wharton decided that since they were the only brewery in town, that Cambria Beer Company was the right name for their decidedly local enterprise.
Not everyone agreed. The Jackson Family Farms is best known for Kendall-Jackson wine, but that’s just one of the more than a dozen wineries that they own. Another one of their labels is Cambria Estate Winery. So you’re probably thinking that makes sense, probably located right down the street. Nope. To get to the Cambria Estate Winery from the brewery, you’ll need to head south on Highway 1, then pick up Interstate 101 at the junction in San Luis Obispo. Drive south to Santa Maria, turn left in downtown and drive west out of town to the winery. All told, it will take you about one hour and twenty minutes to get there, because it’s nearly 80 miles away outside the town of Santa Maria, which is even in a different county (Santa Barbara County), too.
I first saw this on Grub Street, but the local newspaper, The Cambrian, naturally has the most complete account in When is Cambria not in Cambria? Apparently, the Whartons have been trying to negotiate to keep their name since they received the C&D letter from KJ’s lawyers on New Year’s Eve.
Unfortunately, as I understand it, when it comes to trademark law, alcohol is alcohol; they’re in the same class of goods as far as trademark is concerned. This is hardly the first time this has happened. Another small brewery in the Bay Area had to add a letter to their name because a spirits company was using the original spelling. A San Francisco brewery not long ago had to change the name of one of its beers, because there was a rum of the same name.
So there is some precedent here, it’s not totally out of left field. The Cambrian author wonders if every business in Cambria using Cambria in their name should be worried, rightly concluding no. But the fact that the winery is so far from the town and they serve largely a different demographic makes it not so cut and dry. A commenter on Reddit who claimed to be close to the parties involved mentioned that the brewery’s attorneys believed they had a strong case, but the $50,000 (minimum) price tag to fight it was too much for them, as it would be for almost any small company. So the brewery did what most people would in this situation, and decided to change their name. Last week, they posted that decision on their Facebook page, asking fans and customers to help them come up with a new name by leaving a comment. They’ve had a lot of suggestions so far, including several funny ones.
I’m starting to think that trademark law may need some modification. Clearly, alcohol is not alcohol anymore. Maybe there was a time when that made sense, but I think most of us can agree that we can tell the difference between beer and wine. And it seems to me geographic truth should trump whatever reason this winery is using a name that has nothing to do with where it’s located. I seem to recall another trademark case where the Boston Beer Company (Samuel Adams) sued Boston Beer Works and lost, the court ruling that “Boston” was too generic a term, ditto “beer.” Komlossy Law has a nice overview of the case, if you’re interested in learning more. And those were both beer companies, so it does seem like Cambria Beer might have had a decent shot at keeping their name. Still, you have to understand not wanting to spend a fortune going to court on an uncertain result. As we learned in “War Games,” sometimes “the only winning move is not to play.” If nothing else, I hope we can all support whatever new name they decide on and stop by and spend our money there the next time we drive by on our way to or from Los Angeles or the Bay Area. Success is always the best revenge.
Patent No. 3298835A: Process For Production Of A Hop Concentrate
Today in 1967, US Patent 3298835 A was issued, an invention of Murray Peter John Andrew, Clarke Brian James, Hildebrand Robert Peter, and Harold Frank Vincent, and assigned to Carlton & United Breweries, for their “Process for Production of a Hop Concentrate.” Essentially it’s a “process for the production of a hop concentrate wherein the flavour imparting constituents of hops are increased by extracting and then converting inactive constituents to active flavour imparting constituents.” There’s no Abstract, but this is from the description:
The process of this invention involves the utilization of those constituents which are regarded as relatively inactive or which do not normally impart the desired flavour characteristics to brewed beverages and which are not converted to any substantial degree to active flavour-imparting constituents during treatment by existing. processes. In the process of our co-pending application the relatively inactive hop constituents of a-acids known as humulones are converted to the more active iso-humulones by the process of isomerization. It is an object of the present invention to provide an improved process for the production of a hop concentrate for brewing purposes, whereby the lupulones content of the p-acids of hops may be utilized in addition to the humulone content of the a-acids, thereby increasing the flavouring or bittering characteristics of the hop concentrate final product for the production of a brewed beverage.
