In the mid to late 1990s and were not used again until 2010. Stone Brewing states that the use of these terms stopped Stone Brewing’s lawyers bring up in the Motions to dismiss documents is, “continued One of the keyĬomponents in using this strategy is “continued” use of these terms. STONES, & HOLD MY STONES are based in Common law statutes. Strategic position, MillerCoors claims to the STONE™ are in using STONE, Issues identified by the MillerCoors counterclaims. I would like to add some information and opinions on these strategic MillerCoors states “Stone Brewing’s arguments depend entirely on dissembling MillerCoors’ KEYSTONE™, focusing only on the ‘STONE’ portion of the mark while ignoring the ‘KEY’ portion that is prominently visible on both the cans and outer packaging.”īackbone of the MillerCoors counterclaims to the complaints filed in FebruaryĢ019.MillerCoors alleges that as “Stone Brewing beers are primarily sold in bottles and on draft, and its trade dress has a dark medieval theme centered around a devilish gargoyle character.” Therefore, there is no way any beer drinker can “actually” be confused between these two beers.MillerCoors alleges that this case has nothing to do with trademarks but is merely a “mega-craft beer manufacturer” that is simply going through “growing pains” as it becomes a member of the “Big Beer” community.Furthermore, MillerCoors notes the KEYSTONE™ was obtained nearly 10 years before Stone Brewing registered its STONE™. MillerCoors states that Keystone, Keystone Light, Coors Company Logo, and Rocky Mountain background are on all packaging & containers of Keystone and Keystone Light.Since Stone Brewing was not in currently in existence when this nickname became popular MillerCoors has senior rights to the STONE trademark. MillerCoors is claiming the use of words or phrases such as STONE, STONES, & HOLD MY STONES were put into use in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s when they learned that many Keystone and Keystone Light consumers had begun using a nickname calling those beers STONES or saying LET’S GRAB SOME STONES. These are my explanations in layman’s language of the five areas they That as a matter of law they are the senior of the two companies using the Is a multi-pronged argument that MillerCoors did not infringe on the STONE™. On ApMillerCoors filed Counterclaims to the USĭistrict Court of Southern California. Stone Brewing and my opinions on the issues brought up by MillerCoors in the Furthermore, theĪrticle will describe MillerCoors’ ‘Counterclaims’ which are being made against The claims made in Stone Brewing’s complaints document. In Part 1 I attempted to explain theseĪllegations in “layman’s terms.” This article will breakdown the responses to Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Trademark Dilution, UnfairĬompetition, and Declaratory Relief. Illegal infringement upon Stone Brewing Company’s trademark STONE™. In summary on Februaryġ2, 2018 Stone Brewing Company filed a formal complaint in the US DistrictĬourt of Southern California against MillerCoors for several issues regarding Stone Brewing’s Civil lawsuit against MillerCoors, LLC. In Part 1 of this series we looked at the beginnings of
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |