Beer Trademark Battle: Magic Hat v. West Sixth

What happens when you flip a “#9” upside down? You get a “6”—and, according to Vermont-based brewery Magic Hat, a trademark infringement lawsuit. The dispute between Magic Hat Brewing Company and West Sixth Brewing of Lexington, Kentucky became one of the more colorful trademark battles in craft beer history and generated significant public attention when a social media campaign organized by West Sixth’s supporters turned the legal dispute into a public relations crisis for Magic Hat. The case illustrates how the trademark infringement analysis works in practice—and how public perception can depart sharply from legal merit.

The Parties and Their Marks

Magic Hat Brewing was founded in 1994 in South Burlington, Vermont, and is best known for its flagship beer, “#9,” which has been brewed and sold since at least 1995. The #9 beer features a trademarked logo: an orange circle surrounding a stylized “#9” with a starburst dingbat inside the number. Magic Hat obtained federal trademark registration for this logo and has built decades of consumer recognition around it.

West Sixth Brewing was founded in Lexington, Kentucky in 2012—less than a year before the dispute arose. West Sixth’s logo features a circle with a stylized “6” inside it, reflecting the brewery’s name and its location on West Sixth Street. West Sixth’s founders chose the name and logo to honor the brewery’s address and the neighborhood’s history; the circular logo with a numeral inside is central to the brand identity.

Magic Hat’s Infringement Theory

Magic Hat’s argument was straightforward in its simplicity: a “6” is a “9” inverted, and the two logos—both featuring a number inside a circle—create a likelihood of confusion among consumers. Under the trademark infringement test derived from the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114, likelihood of confusion is evaluated using a multi-factor test that considers: (1) the strength of the plaintiff’s mark; (2) the degree of similarity between the marks; (3) the relatedness of the goods; (4) the marketing channels used; (5) the care consumers are likely to exercise in purchasing; (6) evidence of actual confusion; (7) the defendant’s intent in selecting the mark; and (8) the likelihood of expansion into similar markets.

Applying this framework, Magic Hat had real arguments. Both marks feature a number (or symbol) inside a circle. Both are used in connection with craft beer. Both companies operated in overlapping distribution areas. The strength of the #9 mark, built over nearly two decades of national distribution, was substantial.

West Sixth’s Countervailing Arguments

West Sixth had strong counterarguments. The marks, while sharing a circular format, differ substantially: the “#9” features a hash symbol and an explicit number, while the “6” is a different numeral with a different visual character. The color schemes differed. The stylistic treatment of each mark differed. Craft beer consumers—who tend to exercise more purchasing care than mass market consumers and who specifically identify with and research the brands they purchase—were unlikely to confuse a Vermont brewery’s legacy brand with a new Kentucky brewery.

West Sixth also had evidence of independent creation. The brewery was named for and located on West Sixth Street; the numeral 6 was chosen to reflect that address, not to evoke Magic Hat’s #9. This absence of bad intent undermines one of the key factors in the confusion analysis.

The Social Media Dimension

What made the Magic Hat v. West Sixth dispute unusual was the role of social media. After Magic Hat sent its cease and desist letter, West Sixth went public with it—and the craft beer community rallied behind the small Kentucky brewery with viral intensity. A “Save West Sixth” campaign spread across Facebook, Twitter, and beer blogs, generating thousands of messages to Magic Hat criticizing the lawsuit. Magic Hat’s Facebook page was flooded with negative comments. Within weeks, Magic Hat’s public image had suffered significant damage—among exactly the craft beer consumers who are its core demographic.

The dispute ultimately resolved through a negotiated settlement. The social media pressure appears to have been a factor: Magic Hat agreed to drop the trademark claims in exchange for West Sixth making modifications to its logo design to increase the visual distinction between the marks. Whether Magic Hat’s original infringement claim had sufficient merit to survive litigation remains debatable—but the case demonstrated that public relations calculus can significantly affect the litigation economics of trademark disputes, particularly in the craft beer industry where brand authenticity matters deeply to consumers.

Lessons for Brand Owners

The Magic Hat v. West Sixth case offers several lessons. For brand owners contemplating trademark enforcement: assess not only the legal merits but the public relations implications of sending cease and desist letters to sympathetic smaller businesses. For businesses that receive trademark demands: early and transparent communication with your community can generate support that changes the economics of a dispute. For both sides: most trademark disputes are better resolved through early negotiation than litigation, and the cost of litigation—financial, reputational, and relational—almost always exceeds the cost of a negotiated resolution.

Revision Legal’s trademark attorneys handle both trademark enforcement and defense. Whether you are protecting a brand you have built or defending against an overreaching trademark claim, we provide the practical legal strategy your situation requires. Contact us today for a consultation.