Name continuity does not prove liquid continuity. The book's later 1918 result is incorrect; see the independently checked opinion linked in EXT-631. This passage is secondary historical synthesis, not a court holding.
The passage introduces court records as a way to separate bourbon legend from documented brand and product history.
Minnick describes dealers continuing to use James C. Crow's name after his whiskey was exhausted, including products that differed in composition, until W. A. Gaines & Co. adopted Old Crow as a trademark and litigation tested ownership of the brand.
PDF sheet 85
Finding Crow
Fresh full-source review, 2026-09-29. Name continuity does not prove liquid continuity. The book's later 1918 result is incorrect; see the independently checked opinion linked in EXT-631. This passage is secondary historical synthesis, not a court holding.
Evidence
Minnick describes dealers continuing to use James C. Crow's name after his whiskey was exhausted, including products that differed in composition, until W. A. Gaines & Co. adopted Old Crow as a trademark and litigation tested ownership of the brand.
Location and context
PDF sheet 85; Finding Crow.
The passage introduces court records as a way to separate bourbon legend from documented brand and product history.
Interpretation and verification
Name continuity does not prove liquid continuity. The book's later 1918 result is incorrect; see the independently checked opinion linked in EXT-631. This passage is secondary historical synthesis, not a court holding.
Verified means fidelity to the supplied source, not independent proof of every reported event. Canonical Source, Literature Note and Citation relations retained.