Did you ever hear of Bottlehood? The reuse beer jars to make candles.

[islandgirl]

I thought I would post this after reading the other thread about reusing jars.

I came across this on Amazon and then googled them.

Many of us agree to disagree on the reusing of jars, but my questions with reusing this jar would be:

Is it legal to use labeled glassware from another company to sell candles in??

I mean, isn't the name TM'd.

Product Description $30.00

A soy wax candle scented with Nag Champa is filled in this Left Coast Brewery Black Magic Stout repurposed bottle. Soy wax candles are ivory colored, non-toxic (biodegradable and petroleum-free) and each burns clean for 10+ hours.

Perfect item for a guy gift, and even better after the candle has burned down, you can use it as a jar!

Size: 6" tall

Capacity: 16 ounce

Quantity: One

Website

Facebook

Edited April 23, 2011 by islandgirl

[Stella1952]

Is it legal to use labeled glassware from another company to sell candles in??

I mean, isn't the name TM'd.

I am not positive of the law, but I don't think I would mention the name of the product in the description, however. That might be one toe over the line. I strongly suspect that if the bottler of that fine beverage was aware of the "repurposed" use of their trademarked bottle, they would be within their rights to send a "cease and desist" letter to the manufacturer (Bottlehood) if they did not want unwanted publicity or potential liability in case the container failed and caused fire, injury or damage.

This paper on the various aspects of glass recycling may clear up some misconceptions about recycling glass and reusing glass (different).

http://www.cd3wd.com/cd3wd_40/vita/glasrcyc/en/glasrcyc.htm

Beverage bottles refilled by commercial bottlers must be designed for reuse. Even so, such reuse eventually causes even bottles designed for it to weaken, and frequently to fail. A bottle failure while the bottle is in the filling line can result in an expensive short-term shutdown of the system, and a failure while the bottle is in the consumer's possession can result in personal injury. Large product liability settlements in the United States have reduced the economic feasibility of container reuse. Bottles must be checked carefully before reuse to be sure they are free of nicks, chips, cracks, or other defects.

Following ASTM standards for candle glassware is voluntary at this time in the US. While consumer protection laws for candles manufactured in the US do not require that the glassware meet ASTM standards, that leaves customers in the position of caveat emptor and the manufacturers with their pants down around their ankles if a "repurposed" container DOES fail and cause a problem. Sure, product liability insurance would (hopefully) cover the cost of the damage or lawsuit, but the question one has to ask is "is it worth it to take the risk?" Edited April 25, 2011 by Stella1952

[Candybee]

I think the bottles make nice glasses. Personally I'll stick to glassware designed for candle use. Stella points out something interesting. I did not realise that some glassware is ASTM standard candle glassware. How do you know the glassware you use is ASTM approved? That could make a nice selling point.

One thing caught my eye. The candle is touted as burning 10+ hours for a 16oz soy? Really?!!! I also love the 'nontoxic (biodegradable and petroleum free)' marketing. Don't know that I would call a scented soy candle nontoxic thou. Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the making of soy require some petroleum?

[wicknbean]

I have been working at creating something similar but, after reading many of the posts here, I am starting to rethink. I have made several candles out of wine bottles and burned them with no issues and beautiful results.

30.00 WOW! - I'm having complaints about a 20.00 price tag.

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't see any issue of reusing the jar with the label. It was approved by the company for use. Wouldn't it be the same as buying a decal of the label and applying it to the bottle? I believe the TM issue is in re-creating a label or name that was not approved by the company.

1. No $$ were paid to them for the use.

2. It doesn't meet their standards, image, or brand.

That being said, if I received a cease and desist letter, I would definitely stop

Interesting article Stella - Thanks.

[rjdaines]

This forum always brings up points I've never considered, for example. If one sells candles in glass containers (let's say apothecary jars) and customers return the jars after the wax is gone, how many times would you consider reusing the jars so long as they were free of cracks and chips? I'm thinking I am going to hearing "Never" a lot. How about lids? They are less recyclable than the jars because of plastic parts and are not used in the burning.

As far as the OP and the printed bottles, nice idea but if the company does not approve or license of the use if it's logo or trade marker for that purpose, it could mean trouble down the road.

[Stella1952]

If one sells candles in glass containers (let's say apothecary jars) and customers return the jars after the wax is gone, how many times would you consider reusing the jars so long as they were free of cracks and chips?

Zero. I will take acceptable risks for MYSELF ONLY.

How do you know the glassware you use is ASTM approved?

Ask your supplier.

Check out the "Repurposing containrs" thread... The pdf file I referenced there in Post #40 (page 4) has discussion about specific equipment used to check for invisible faults in glassware. Unless you have it lying around your shop, best advice is don't go there.

I think the bottles make nice glasses.

I agree. They also make pleasing electric lights.

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't see any issue of reusing the jar with the label. It was approved by the company for use.

It is THEIRS to use, not anyone else's. They own the intellectual property rights to their logos and trademarks. The proper way to approach this is to write to the company and ask permission PRIOR to using THEIR intellectual property, otherwise this is an infringement. They not only used the label, they used the company's name in their product description. If they had received permission, it is standard to use the label "Used by Permission." What makes Bottlehood think the owner of the intellectual property is okay with this? Companies are very particular about using their trademarks without permission, especially on products that might get them drawn into a litigious situation. This is no different than putting an NFL team logo or a picture of Mickey Mouse on a candle without permission. Whether you placed the label on the bottle or not, you are using the bottle AND label for an unapproved, unlicensed purpose.

US Patent & Trademark Office

http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/index.jsp

US Copyright Office

http://www.copyright.gov/

Definition of Fair Use

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

Edited April 25, 2011 by Stella1952

[SliverOfWax]

Logos are most definitely trademarked and intended for use only by approved sources. Period. No ifs, ands, or butts about it.

Periodically, the local university makes a sweep through craft shows, flea markets, places where people tend to sell that kind of merchandise. They confiscate everything.

I once worked with a gal who made pet clothing. She wanted to use the university logo on some of her doggie caps, etc. First, she would have been required to pay an enormous fee (I don't remember what it was, but it took my breath away). Then, each item would have to be individually approved for resale, and every venue where she sold the items also had to be approved. The entire process stopped her from proceeding. She didn't have that kind of money.

The folks who own the trademark don't want anyone else profiting. They make big money by licensing their merchandise to approved sellers. They also don't want their name associated with shoddy workmanship and I can't say I blame them.

[angielyn]

I went to school to be a paralegal and although I'm not a lawyer/attorney there is NO way I'd sell a jar candle with someone else's logo on it. That's asking for trouble... Unless they were given permission. But, to out right use them and sell them no way!!!!... Chances are you wouldn't be bothered unless you became a big seller making big money off of their jars. But, who would want to take that chance?? NOT me.

Might as well just go get some yankee candle jars and reuse them while your at it haha

[EricofAZ]

I'm pretty sure that when a beer company bottles beer, they did not design the bottle nor intend for it to be cut, ground, smoothed, and then filled with wax and lit on fire. Beer is meant to be cold and light to be kept out. That's pretty much the research and thinking that went into brown beer bottles.

Also, I was looking at a recent insurance application and it asks if the insured intends to relabel a product. I'm think that means "Do you plan on buying Yankmee candles and putting your name on it?" but I think it might also apply to this beer bottle candle idea as well. After all, it is not beer any more, its B$^&h Slap Candle Company, or something like that.

[islandgirl]

They even sell name brand bottles, and make glasses and tumblers with them. (Coke, Corona, Stone Brewery, Grey Goose and more!)

http://store.bottlehood.com/categories/JUICE-GLASSES/

http://store.bottlehood.com/categories/TUMBLERS/

They are reselling 2 coke glasses for $25.00. I am very surprised these big name companies are not all over this with a C&D letter. Now you know for sure coke did not give them permission to sell their glasses because they sell their own.

Edited April 26, 2011 by islandgirl

[deb426]

This is an interesting link on the subject of using trademarked or copyrighted material as part of your art.

If you google "trademark infringement upcycling" there are some other interesting reads.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:27OywzI8p9cJ:smallerbox.net/blog/legal-issues/working-with-upcycled-materials-you-could-be-in-legal-jeopardy/+trademark+infringement+upcycling&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

Edited April 26, 2011 by deb426

[islandgirl]

Deb ~ That is a great and interesting link.. Seems like this is quite a slippery slope in this dept..

In your article it is quoted, which I found interesting...

“To answer your question, you have to differentiate between one-of-a kind works and reproduced works. In the first category, if an artist or business takes consumer materials, e.g. cereal boxes, newspaper excerpts, jewelry or eyeglasses, and incorporates these actual items into a work of art, for example in a collage, and sells that art, in the usual situation this is not copyright infringement, because (under the first sale doctrine, as you mentioned), one who legitimately acquires copyrighted material can generally use it (but NOT reproduce it) in any manner.

However, in the second category, if the artist or business takes consumer materials, and reproduces them alone or in combination, that might be copyright or trademark infringement, on the basis that the company who made the consumer materials might have copyright or trademark protection. The defense here is the “fair use” defense, meaning generally there is an artistic or transformative purpose for the reproduction, and it does not compete directly with the interests of the original product producer. There is often not a black and white answer to whether the fair use defense applies in a given situation.”

Edited April 26, 2011 by islandgirl

[Dolphin146]

I have been told that once you buy the bottle. It is yours to do with what you want. Just like bottlecaps with the company logo on it. Once paid for they are yours to use as you wish. I personally would not use them for candles. But they are nice looking.

[Stella1952]

I have been told that once you buy the bottle. It is yours to do with what you want

WHO "told" you? When it comes to matters like these, word of mouth or non-expert opinions don't get it. READ the law governing trademarks, & copyrights, as well as the definition of "Fair Use".

The link that Deb426 posted (thanks, Deb - excellent read!) is a discussion by intellectual property attorneys about similar issues. If one is considering using another person's intellectual property as a part of a new product or work of art, they NEED TO READ discussions like the ones in that link to understand the complexities of these issues. Do not EVER think that a BIG company won't come after you for using their trademarks, logos, etc. You can even have problems when using derivatives of trademarks, such as "Bud" which most people associate with Budweiser.

The bottle IS "yours to do with what you wish" - for PERSONAL USE. That is NOT the circumstance we are discussing here. This is an actual object bearing a trademarked label being reused and SOLD to the public as a product. They are even using the original product name in their product description. These candles are clearly NOT artwork, but PRODUCTS manufactured that bear registered trademarks without permission or licensing from the trademark owner. This one, unlike other issues, is pretty black & white.

Again, when in doubt, write to the intellectual property owner and ASK for permission to use or feature their stuff in your work of art or product. As a dumpster diver, I create many art objects and products from repurposed materials. I am very careful about HOW I use another person or company's intellectual property because I am well aware that not only could I receive a "cease and desist" letter (the least of the ramifications), I could be sued for damages (to their company's image and/or reputation) AND for monies I earned by the unauthorized sale of the unlicensed products.

This is NOT a joke and companies take their intellectual property VERY seriously!! I don't LIKE lawsuits and I don't like writing business letters, going to court, paying attorneys to defend me, etc. I avoid situations like this by not cavalierly doing what I please and daring others to come after me. Ignorance of the law is no excuse and will not grant one special status in a lawsuit.

[islandgirl]

WHO "told" you? When it comes to matters like these, word of mouth or non-expert opinions don't get it. READ the law governing trademarks, & copyrights, as well as the definition of "Fair Use".

The bottle IS "yours to do with what you wish" - for PERSONAL USE.

Gheesh Stella.. Rip dolphin a new one why don't you!! This is a discussion, and if Dolphin heard this from someone, so be it.. What the heck are you getting so upset about.

Yes, stella, your good at facts that you have Googled , but don't bully and act as if someone is beneath you because they stated something they heard, then you reply with statements like.

That is NOT the circumstance we are discussing here.

I found your post to be very rude to Dolphin!!!! And that's a fact!!!

.

Edited April 26, 2011 by islandgirl

[GermantownCandles]

Soooo... What if you took the label off of the bottles and used them in that way? I know I have seen that Coke has TM the shape of its bottle, so (assuming what they are doing is not legal) would just using a coca cola bottle be illegal too?

[Wessex]

It is my understanding that the coke bottle shape itself is a "copyright". I can't remember where I saw that, but it sounds right to me. N.B. I am not a copyright lawyer, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Steve

[Stella1952]

What if you took the label off of the bottles and used them in that way?

Then it becomes a generic bottle.

I know I have seen that Coke has TM the shape of its bottle, so (assuming what they are doing is not legal) would just using a coca cola bottle be illegal too?

Coke bottles don't have a label - they have a vitreous paint label that is fired onto their trademarked container. I can use them in a one-of-a-kind work of art (so long as I don't mention Coke or Coca-Cola in my descriptions, etc.) but couldnot legally use them to resell as a vase with a paper rose stuck in 'em.

I found your post to be very rude to Dolphin!!!! And that's a fact!!!

Please don't read emotions into my statements that are not intended. Bolding type is a way of emphasizing it, as is capitalization, italics, underlining, etc. I did not "rip Dolphin a new one" at all nor was that my intention. I questioned Dolphin's source - something we should ALL do with hearsay. I didn't say anything that anyone should have inferred to mean that I think I am better than anyone else. I may be more experienced at certain topics because of my personal experiences and professions in life, but that doesn't make me any better than anyone else. The reason I Google is to be able to CITE credible sources so that others do not have to take my statements as fact without supporting citations, and to encourage others to factcheck statements, too. I have a degree in graphic arts and have been a graphic designer of printed material since 1972. I have to know about trademarking and copyright law as a part of my profession so I don't get my butt sued. I'm also a multi-media artist who uses many used materials in my art projects. Rather than trot out a whole buncha crap from my resume, I cite more expert sources.

I CARE about the people who read and participate on this forum, dear, which is WHY I don't want anyone to run afoul of stuff like this. I wouldn't wish it on anyone except someone who knows better and chooses to flaunt the law. The reason I am a little knee-jerky on the subject of intellectual property is that I am a designer and have had the sh*tty experience of having people rip off my designs and sell them to make money for themselves. Only problem is that I am not moneyed enough to sue their butts off like Disney or Coke would do.

I didn't attack Dolphin or anyone else, but you sure as heck attacked me. Now please climb down off MY a**, islandgirl.

Edited April 27, 2011 by Stella1952

[EricofAZ]

Oooooooh, catfight. Einstein and I are going to stay tuned to this thread!

I don't know if you realize it, Stella, but you do come across pretty harsh sometimes against folks. It is OK to correct and set the record straight. How one does that is another matter altogether.

You speak in absolutes a lot. That's ok where there are absolutes. Probably not so great when you are not an expert and not qualified, like trademark, IP, art and Copyright law.

I might have said something like "don't believe everything you heard, check out this website..." rather than starting out with all caps "WHO told you" which is internet typing for "shouting."

Which reminds me, Stella, don't believe everything you read or hear, check out this website on netiquette ... http://www.networketiquette.net/

[angielyn]

lol, reading the http://www.networketiquette.net site and it says "normal people sleep at night" haha I'm not normal I guess cause it's 2:30am and I'm up making candles

[GermantownCandles]

This would definitely be walking a fine line I think... Where could you distinguish between Copyright infringement and one-of-a-kind artwork? I really think what bottlehood is doing is awesome, and it's a great idea! If I were a company like Coca-Cola, Anheuser Busch, or any other bottle producing company, I would jump all over this. Going Green is HUGE right now, I think that some clever marketing with one of these companies could make them some serious $$... IMO

[rjdaines]

This is not art, this is merely trying to make money off of name recognition and using another companies labels and trade marked material. As far as going "green", glass is very recyclable, repurposing it might appear to be a green use but is it really the intent here?

[islandgirl]

Please don't read emotions into my statements that are not intended. Bolding type is a way of emphasizing it, as is capitalization, italics, underlining, etc. I did not "rip Dolphin a new one" at all nor was that my intention. I questioned Dolphin's source - something we should ALL do with hearsay. I didn't say anything that anyone should have inferred to mean that I think I am better than anyone else. I may be more experienced at certain topics because of my personal experiences and professions in life, but that doesn't make me any better than anyone else. The reason I Google is to be able to CITE credible sources so that others do not have to take my statements as fact without supporting citations, and to encourage others to factcheck statements, too. I have a degree in graphic arts and have been a graphic designer of printed material since 1972. I have to know about trademarking and copyright law as a part of my profession so I don't get my butt sued. I'm also a multi-media artist who uses many used materials in my art projects. Rather than trot out a whole buncha crap from my resume, I cite more expert sources.

I CARE about the people who read and participate on this forum, dear, which is WHY I don't want anyone to run afoul of stuff like this. I wouldn't wish it on anyone except someone who knows better and chooses to flaunt the law. The reason I am a little knee-jerky on the subject of intellectual property is that I am a designer and have had the sh*tty experience of having people rip off my designs and sell them to make money for themselves. Only problem is that I am not moneyed enough to sue their butts off like Disney or Coke would do.

I didn't attack Dolphin or anyone else, but you sure as heck attacked me. Now please climb down off MY a**, islandgirl.

I didn't read anything into your statement.

I am not attacking you.

Plain and simple ~ Your statement was rude and I am expressing my opinion.

It's not what you say ~ It's how you say it.

Now please climbdown off your horse, Stella.Netiquette Definition

(Source http://www.networketiquette.net/ by EricofAZ)

network etiquette, is the social code of the internet. A network is a collection of computers that can communicate. Etiquette is a social code of behavior according to contemporary and conventional standards. Therefore, netiquette is the social code of the internet because the internet is a network and etiquette is a social code. There are social codes, netiquettes, for internet categories and domains.

The Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have done to you.

[Stella1952]

This is not art, this is merely trying to make money off of name recognition and using another companies labels and trade marked material. As far as going "green", glass is very recyclable, repurposing it might appear to be a green use but is it really the intent here?

You make an EXCELLENT point, rjd. I think that is part of what defines infringement: making money off another's image, reputation or intellectual property without permission. Most new glass manufactured in the US contains a large percentage of recycled glass (called "cullet").

[GermantownCandles]

Regardless of intent, many people are swayed by the hype of "going green", so from a marketing standpoint I think that this would be a great opportunity for some of these large companies to cash in on the "go green" initiative. It's like all of the companies that sell their products with a pink ribbon on them, (my mom is a breast cancer survivor, and any money that the American Cancer Society receives is awesome!) these large companies realize the marketability of the pink ribbon, so they jump on the band wagon in order to increase sales. I could see the same potential here.. Google "go green" and I got about 87 million results, WAAAAY more results than if you Google "pink ribbon", "breast cancer awareness month", or "breast cancer". So, wherever the potential for profit is, corporate America will follow... Just saying