Two Florida Breweries Clash Over Trademark Dispute
In an interesting combination of alcoholic beverage law and IP law, two breweries in the state of Florida recently butted heads over a trademark dispute. It started when Due South Brewing of Boynton Beach – which has a flagship series of IPAs which range from Category 3-5 – sent a cease and desist letter to Big Storm Brewing claiming that the Tampa-based brewery’s “Hurricane Series” of Belgian-style beers, labeled Categories 1-5, violated Due South’s common law trademark rights to the terms “Category 3” and “Category 4.”
While all beer labels must pass through the TTB before hitting the market, the TTB only makes sure that labels meet the compliance requirements on their checklist. They’re not checking for trademark infringement, so this type of dispute is not unheard of in the alcoholic beverage industry. It sounds like Due South is making a mountain out of a molehill, since a generic-sounding trademark on a completely different style of beer could have a tough time in court against fair-use arguments. But, there is a legal basis for their claim.
Firstly, Due South’s “Category” series is one of its most popular lines. The “Category” trademark is very valuable to them, so it’s in their best interest to take potential infringements seriously. If they don’t, it potentially becomes much easier in future disputes for imitators to argue that their use of the trademark is legitimate.
Fun fact: Due South’s Category 5 IPA placed in multiple categories of the Best Florida Beer Championships of 2014 and 2015. If the brewery’s trademark hadn’t expired last April, they surely would have included it in their claim.
Secondly, a trademark infringement claim must prove that the other party’s use of the trademark is likely to confuse consumers. In their cease and desist letter, Due South claims that they received more than 30 reports of “actual consumer confusion and/or diminution of consumer goodwill” in less than a week.
Fortunately for them, Big Storm made the smartest decision in this scenario: they consulted with a law firm. In a dense, six page response, they laid defensive groundwork citing fair-use, questioning the strength of the trademark, and denying the likelihood of consumer confusion. The legal exchange between the law firms representing the breweries can be read here.
In response, Due South appears to have dropped the issue for now to avoid potentially drawn out litigation. Overall, this serves as an excellent lesson for breweries and the benefits of retaining legal counsel.
