In 2005, we met with the CEO of Skee-Ball, Inc. We explained to him our vision of competitive skee-ball. He chose not to partner with us, but he gave us permission to start the first-ever skee-ball league and to call it Brewskee-Ball.
We trademarked the name Brewskee-Ball, began putting skee-ball lanes in bars, and started leagues across the country. Fun!
Six years later, the branding company for Skee-Ball, Inc., contacted us and wanted to work together. We signed a nondisclosure agreement to protect our future plans and ideas, and began to chat. One month later, while discussions were ongoing, we were surprised to receive a cease-and-desist letter from Skee-Ball, Inc.'s attorney claiming that Brewskee-Ball was an invalid trademark.
We believed we had done nothing wrong and that we were positively promoting the game to a new demographic and market. We had permission from the CEO, we rightfully owned the Brewskee-Ball trademark, and we had already been in business for five years. We told them we would not cease and desist, and, if anything, it's the skee-ball trademark that’s generic and should be deemed invalid.
There is no way to say "skee-ball" other than to say "skee-ball." Simply put, that's the definition of a generic trademark.
In 2011, Skee-Ball, Inc., filed a lawsuit against us in the the Northern District of California, attempting to cancel our trademark and receive damages for unfair competition. We filed a motion to transfer the case to the Eastern District of New York, which we won. We also filed a lawsuit against Skee-Ball, Inc., claiming that their trademark is generic and should be canceled.
After many months of costly but ineffective mediation, we were unable to reach a fair agreement.
Now we're finally heading to trial—and we need your help to continue funding this lawsuit and stand up to Skee-Ball, Inc.
Thanks for the support.
Skee The People!