A nice ploy from JD but really why do they need to protect their 'brand' through the enforcement of intellectual property rights? The way to protect their brand is to ensure reputable practice within their sphere of influence not by pursuing people who essentially promote their brand through imitation. If rival companies were to sell their own whisky with identical or near identical pacakging then that would be a question of fraud or false advertising. But when it comes to imitation of designs I really don't see justification for attempting to stifle this. Let's not forget that trademarks, copyrights and IPRs more generally are state enforced monopolies that have implications for freedom of speech and expression. I think if they are going to be deployed the burden should be placed on those seeking to use them rather than on those that would challenge them. Clearly in this case the situation has been mutually beneficial for the two parties involved but I think there's a broader point to made about our willingness to accept the legitimacy of large corporations to use their economic and legal power to restrict what people allowed to say, do, buy and sell - even if they're nice about it.