3 Lawsuits That Threaten Popular Beverages
By Steve Holtz on Jun. 22, 2018CHICAGO -- Three pending lawsuits involving popular beverage brands could put some of them—or at least their marketing—at risk, pending the outcomes in court.
Two question the use of terms in branding and packaging, while a third threatens to pull the very source of its product out from beneath it.
Here’s a look at the three lawsuits and where they stand today …
Photo courtesy of wp paarz.
Pabst vs. MillerCoors
MillerCoors and Pabst Brewing are headed to court over a half-billion-dollar lawsuit that some say could make Pabst Blue Ribbon into a rare commodity.
At the center of the dispute is a decades-old agreement under which MillerCoors brews all of Pabst's legacy beers, including PBR, according to a CNBC report. That agreement is set to expire in 2020 but includes two options to renew. Chicago-based MillerCoors, however, said it may not have the capacity to continue that relationship as it faces declining sales volume in the United States.
Without that contract renewal, some of Pabst's beer brands could be orphaned, and few other breweries have the capacity Pabst needs to meet its volume demands.
Los Angeles-based Pabst has accused MillerCoors of breach of contract, breach of anti-competition laws, fraud and misrepresentation. MillerCoors contests those claims, arguing it has the right to determine whether it has the capacity to extend the contract.
In April, a Milwaukee judge denied MillerCoors' motion for summary judgment. The two are set to go to trial in November.
Photo courtesy of MaxPixel.
Stone vs. Keystone
MillerCoors is also entangled in a branding lawsuit regarding its Keystone beer.
Escondido, Calif.-based Stone Brewing has filed a lawsuit claiming Keystone's packaging misleadingly capitalizes on the Stone Brewing brand by highlighting the “Stone” part of its brand name on some of its packaging, according to a report on CraftBeer.com.
Stone Brewing co-founder and executive chairman Greg Koch has also started a social-media campaign aiming to “put the ‘key’ back in Keystone.”
MillerCoors, in its legal response, said, “Stone Brewing’s claims are misleading and ultimately meritless.”
“If there is any confusion between these two beers, MillerCoors’ rights are superior to Stone Brewing’s," the response continued. "MillerCoors used Keystone, Stone and Stones to sell Keystone beer prior to Stone Brewing’s first use of Stone.”
Stone Brewing Co. was incorporated in 1996. Keystone was introduced by MillerCoors owner Molson Coors Brewing Co. in 1989.
DPSG vs. Coca-Cola
A U.S. appeals court on June 20 revived Dr Pepper Snapple Group Inc.’s (DPSG's) challenge to Coca-Cola Co.’s effort to register trademarks for soft drinks and sports drinks whose names contain the word “zero,” according to a Reuters report.
The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., in a 3-0 decision, threw out a May 2016 dismissal of much of Dr Pepper’s decade-old case, saying a trademark review board failed to properly analyze whether “zero” was too generic to be trademarked.
Coca-Cola uses “zero” on several of its diet brands, including Coke Zero and Sprite Zero. But so do Pepsi, Zevia and other beverage brands.
The case was returned to the trademark board for further proceedings.
DPSG said it welcomed the decision. “We do not believe that any company should have the ability to claim exclusive trademark rights to a term like ‘zero’ in connection with zero-calorie beverages,” spokesman Chris Barnes told Reuters.