Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
CommunitySub-MenuPublishersChannelsProductsSub-MenuBlog ProBlog PlusBlog PremierMicrositeSyndication PortalsAboutContactResourcesSubscribeSupport
Join
Search
Close

Stone/MillerCoors Battle Update #2: Summary Judgment

By Tucker Chambers on August 25, 2020
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

Back in 2018 (seems like a decade ago during these unusual times), I posted a couple times about a trademark infringement complaint by Stone Brewing, a craft brewery in California, against MillerCoors. The complaint alleged that the rebranded cans and packaging of the Keystone beer, which added separate emphasis of the word “STONE,” infringed Stone Brewing’s registered rights to its “STONE” trademark for beer.

In the couple years since my last post, the parties have been duking it out in discovery. The contentious nature of the dispute, already evident in the complaint and answer, continued escalating in discovery. Last year, discovery sanctions were imposed against MillerCoors when the court determined that MillerCoors withheld relevant marketing materials that should have been produced.

More recently, the parties both filed motions for summary judgment, which had the potential to end the case. Neither party prevailed, however, as the court granted in part and denied in part both parties’ motions earlier this year. The most significant issues raised in the motions were Stone Brewing’s trademark infringement claim, MillerCoors’s laches defense, and MillerCoors’s claim of prior use of STONE.

The court denied Stone Brewing’s motion for summary judgment on its trademark infringement claim. Some of the court’s analysis favored Stone Brewing, and the court even observed that summary judgment “[was] a close call.” But the court ultimately concluded that the fact-intensive issue of a likelihood of confusion “should be answered … by a jury” at trial.

The court granted Stone Brewing’s motion for summary judgment on MillerCoors’s laches defense (unreasonable delay in bringing the lawsuit), concluding that laches cannot apply to Stone Brewing’s lawsuit filed in 2018 because the infringement claim accrued only a year prior in 2017, when the Keystone packaging was rebranded.

MillerCoors argued in its motion that it had established priority, based on its use of “STONE” for beer since 1991. The court denied the motion, concluding that disputed factual issues remained concerning whether “STONE” was continuously used as a trademark by MillerCoors prior to 2017, whether there was a 14-year gap in the alleged use of STONE by MillerCoors, and whether the MillerCoors marketing materials containing “STONE” were ever used in commerce.

With neither party obtaining a complete victory on summary judgment, the case is headed to trial this October, unless the parties settle before then. There is a lot at stake, with Stone Brewing seeking to recover $1 billion in damages based on the alleged infringing sales of Keystone beer.

We’ll see what happens in the next couple months before trial. In the meantime, if you want to taste what this trademark fight is all about at your next virtual happy hour, Stone Brewing’s well-reviewed STONE IPA is available at Total Wine (and so is Keystone, if you’d like to check out the disputed packaging). Cheers, and stay tuned for updates.

Photo of Tucker Chambers Tucker Chambers

View my professional biography

I’ve always been fascinated by brands, logos, slogans, and other creative works. I remember in my first year of middle school, asking my parents for the Adidas “three stripe” shoes to match my friends at school. And I vividly…

View my professional biography

I’ve always been fascinated by brands, logos, slogans, and other creative works. I remember in my first year of middle school, asking my parents for the Adidas “three stripe” shoes to match my friends at school. And I vividly recall various McDonald’s commercials and billboards, with the golden arches and the ubiquitous slogans, such as “We Love to See You Smile” (which, in my teenage years, changed to the allegedly hipper slogan “i’m lovin’ it”). And other endless logos and characters would intrigue me at the grocery store. I remember wondering why the little ® and © symbols were there, and what they meant—and eventually, this all led to an interest in trademarks and copyright law.

I was also drawn to intellectual property law based on my interests in technology, computers, and robotics. In my high school years, a small group of friends started a robotics team and asked me to join. We built a makeshift robot (primarily from plywood and pool noodles) and somehow ended up winning a regional competition. The following year (with a significantly more sophisticated robot), we advanced to the national championship.

My interest in practicing intellectual property law also grew through my law school courses and research work with my intellectual property professor, Ruth Okediji. In particular, one of my courses allowed me to embark on a week of extracurricular traveling to conduct pro bono work for a non-profit organization, including a visit to Tetiaroa in French Polynesia (a two-square-mile atoll, about three hours by boat from Tahiti). I worked diligently on some trademark matters, while sitting by the beach, sipping on fresh coconut water. Needless to say, that beach-side adventure set a high bar for the real-world practice of intellectual property law—but thus far I have not been disappointed.

Outside of work, I enjoy spending time with my wife and family, trying out new restaurants in the Twin Cities area (especially Italian and Latin American), playing tennis, and catching up on my favorite TV shows (current favorite: Stranger Things) or watching movies—especially spy thrillers, mind-benders, or futuristic sci-fi (all-time favorite: Inception).

Email
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Intellectual Property
  • Blog:
    DuetsBlog
  • Organization:
    Winthrop & Weinstine, P.A.
  • Article: View Original Source

LexBlog, Inc. logo
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
Real Lawyers
99 Park Row
  • About LexBlog
  • Careers
  • Press
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Privacy Policy
  • Editorial Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Service
  • RSS Terms of Service
  • Products
  • Blog Pro
  • Blog Plus
  • Blog Premier
  • Microsite
  • Syndication Portals
  • LexBlog Community
  • 1-800-913-0988
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
  • Resource Center

New to the Network

  • The FTI Award Journal
  • International Dispute Resolution
  • China Law Update Blog
  • Law of The Ledger
  • Antitrust Law Blog
Copyright © 2022, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo