Partner
An interesting 24 hours for Tony Magee saw the Lagunitas Brewing Company founder file a trademark infringement lawsuit in federal court, catch some flack via social media regarding the validity and motivations of the suit, and eventually announce via Twitter that the suit would be pulled. Apparently the court of public opinion delivered a strong enough ruling to entice Magee to back down.
The potential suit was filed in the Northern District of California on January 13th, and featured Lagunitas bringing four claims against Sierra Nevada Brewing Company for trademark infringement. Lagunitas claimed that the I-P-A lettering on Nevada’s Hop Hunter IPA six-pack carrier infringed on the Lagunitas IPA carrier. Lagunitas claimed that the spacing between the letters was too similar, and that because Nevada was known to collaborate with other brewers, the similarity in the lettering might lead consumers to believe Lagunitas was involved in production of Hop Hunter.
In trademark infringement cases, a valid trademark can be defended against similar marks by proving a likelihood of consumer confusion. Courts have developed certain factors to help guide them in determining whether or not the similar mark is likely to confuse. Courts look to the:
In Lagunitas’s case, the chances of winning were slim at best. The most interesting part of the story, however, is that after announcing the filing of its suit, Lagunitas let the public voice its opinion regarding the strength of the case. When Lagunitas found little to no support, the suit was dropped within 24 hours of its filing.
The legal merits of Lagunitas’s claim were questionable from the outset, and a closer look at each of the likelihood-of-confusion factors explains why.
On the strength of the mark, “IPA” is a widely used acronym for India Pale Ale — a beer style, not a brand. Generic and descriptive terms receive weak or no trademark protection. Lagunitas did not claim to own “IPA” as a trademark, but it did claim protection for the particular lettering style and spacing used in its packaging. The distinctiveness of that specific trade dress, rather than the term itself, was the relevant question — and trade dress protection for letter spacing on a beer package is a thin reed.
On the proximity of the goods and marketing channels, the two beers are undeniably proximate — both are IPAs sold in similar retail environments to similar consumers. But proximity cuts both ways. Sophisticated craft beer consumers who encounter two different IPA products from two well-known, distinct breweries are unlikely to confuse them based on letter spacing. The degree of care exercised by craft beer purchasers — who tend to actively read labels and are knowledgeable about the brands they buy — weighs against a likelihood of confusion.
On the similarity of the marks, Lagunitas’s trade dress claim was particularly difficult to sustain. Both packages used block capital letters “I P A” with spacing between the letters. But the overall commercial impression of the two packages — including logo design, color scheme, brand name placement, and overall visual identity — was quite different. Trademark infringement analysis considers the marks as wholes, not isolated elements, and the holistic comparison of the two packages strongly favored Sierra Nevada.
Trade dress — the total image or overall commercial impression of a product’s packaging — is protectable under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), without formal registration, if the trade dress is distinctive and has acquired secondary meaning. The Supreme Court addressed trade dress protection extensively in Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763 (1992), and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc., 529 U.S. 205 (2000).
For product packaging trade dress — as opposed to product design — inherent distinctiveness can support protection without proof of secondary meaning. But the packaging at issue must be distinctive in a meaningful sense. A commonly used letter format on a beer label, without more, is unlikely to meet that standard.
The craft beer industry presents a particularly challenging environment for trade dress claims. The explosion of craft breweries has created a crowded visual landscape for beer packaging, with many breweries using similar design elements — bold typography, vintage-inspired graphics, clean minimalist designs — that reflect common industry aesthetics rather than the distinctive commercial identity of any single brand. Courts evaluating trade dress claims in crowded fields give individual elements less protection when those elements are commonly used throughout the relevant market.
The Lagunitas case illustrates several important lessons for businesses considering trademark or trade dress claims.
First, a careful pre-litigation assessment of the legal merits is essential. Filing a lawsuit you cannot win is expensive and damaging to your reputation — as Lagunitas discovered in real time when the craft beer community reacted negatively to what it perceived as overreach. The legal fees incurred in the short life of that lawsuit were wasted, and the reputational fallout likely cost the company more than the theoretical harm it sought to prevent.
Second, the public relations dimension of intellectual property enforcement is real. In the craft beer community — which values collaboration, independence, and community over corporate behavior — aggressive legal action against a fellow craft brewery carries reputational risks that do not apply in other industries. Any enforcement decision must weigh the legal merits against the business consequences of the enforcement action itself.
Third, trademark and trade dress rights in common industry terms and design elements are narrower than rights in distinctive, arbitrary marks. Breweries that build their brand identity around common descriptors or widely used visual formats face inherent limitations on their ability to exclude competitors from using similar elements. The better investment is developing truly distinctive brand elements that command stronger protection.
Whether you are considering an enforcement action, responding to a demand letter, or proactively building a trademark portfolio that will stand up in court, Revision Legal’s trademark attorneys have the experience to help you navigate the intersection of trademark law and the craft beer industry. We provide honest assessments of legal merits, not just the answer you want to hear. Contact us today to discuss your situation.
The Lagunitas episode offers a useful framework for how craft breweries — and any business with valuable intellectual property — should think about enforcement decisions before acting. The first question is never “do we have any possible legal theory?” Almost any alleged similarity can be spun into some legal claim. The right question is whether the claim is meritorious, whether the likely outcome justifies the costs and risks, and whether enforcement serves the business’s long-term interests.
For a craft brewery, brand reputation is a business asset at least as valuable as a registered trademark. In a community where consumers choose brands based on values and identity as much as product quality, legal aggression against fellow craft breweries — particularly when the claim appears pretextual — can turn your customers into your opponent’s customers. Lagunitas lost the public relations battle in hours. The legal battle, if it had continued, might have lasted years.
Revision Legal’s approach to trademark enforcement for craft brewery clients is to provide an honest assessment of the legal merits before recommending any action. We counsel clients against enforcement actions that are unlikely to succeed or that carry disproportionate reputational risk. When enforcement is warranted — when a competitor is genuinely trading on your brand equity or creating real consumer confusion — we pursue it aggressively. The goal is always to serve the client’s actual business interests, not to generate legal fees from litigation that should not have been filed.
Defendants in trademark infringement cases have several affirmative defenses available. Here’s an overview of the most common defenses, from fair use to laches to acquiescence.
Read more about Affirmative Defenses in Trademark Infringement
Nominative use allows referencing another’s trademark to describe their product. Here’s how courts distinguish protected nominative use from infringing uses across different circuits.
Read more about Nominative Use or Trademark Infringement?
The M22 trademark dispute between a Michigan brand and the State of Michigan attracted national attention. Here’s the background on how the M22 brand was built and defended.
Read more about What’s Up With the M22 Trademark?