So when Painkiller (the bar) opened its doors a year ago, Pusser's became pissed off about it and demanded that the bar cease and desist the use of their trademarked term as their name, and that they cease selling drinks called Painkiller unless it featured Pusser's rum. Painkiller (the bar), as you might imagine, also happened to feature the Painkiller (the drink) on their menu, and not necessarily with Pusser's rum in it. The name Painkiller also happens to be trademarked, and that trademark happens to be owned by the rum company Pusser's.
The bar's name, obviously, is a tribute to the drink and by extension, its creators. It also happens to be the name of a tiki bar in Manhattan which opened just a year ago. It's a drink I wrote about a couple years ago (photographed above updated post here), and it's one I still enjoy on a hot summer day. Read the original post here.Īt the heart of the dispute is a classic tiki drink called the Painkiller. They were the first to break the story about the Pusser's drama. And because the dispute involves the confounding and often contradictory legal concept of intellectual property, there's been some confusion that I think needs to be cleared up as well-and who better than a lawyer to do so? It's a story that's led to a lot of anger among us folks in the cocktail biz, as it touches on a number of issues we consider important, so I figured I'd touch on it here.
In the past week there's been a lot of buzz in cocktail circles regarding the outcome of a legal dispute between Pusser's rum and Painkiller, a tiki bar in the Lower East Side of Manhattan.
0 kommentar(er)
