Selling out?
If theyāre selling out, I feel like he probably canāt claim he didnāt ask for it.
Some bullshit trademark lawsuit? Itās the land of sue opportunity after all.
I guess one of their beer-names probably offended someone because of gender stuff or racism and after the weekend they will be āoutedā.
What on earth is a gender-appropriate snack?
How is popcorn gender inappropriate?
It seems you missed the Lady Doritos flap. Partial credit.
With Stone, who knows? Perhaps theyāve discovered thereās no such brewery as Arrogant Brewing.
Possibly a lawsuit with Great Divide?
https://www.ratebeer.com/beer/great-divide-arrogant-bastard/362658/
Time is likely running out for Stone to challenge this or the term Arrogant Bastard ends up in the public domain due to non-enforcement.
Wasnāt there a whole series of those with other breweries making Arrogant Bastard clones?
There was a whole series of collabs, not sure if this was one of them or not.
2 Likes
Hereās a direct link to Gregās Youtube post:
1 Like
When I saw him holding the can I thought: whatever.
Then I saw the marketing picture from MillerCoors (shown a bit later in the video) and I guess he has a point.
Trademarks and copyright in the US is hard to follow for me though (sometimes it seems like everyone is filing lawsuits all the time over there), so Iāve got no idea how this will play out.
Also the video is so dramatic (with the multiple angles and stuff) Iām not 100% sure itās not satire.
2 Likes
Old Can:
New Can:
Actually had this experience a few months ago. Straight up saw Stone only, checked brewery city and though Stone sold out and was contract brewing with Miller. A store employee had to correct me to look for the small āKeyā printed on it. Open and shut case in my book. Which means it will be in the court system for years.
2 Likes
The video is VERY dramatic, and not a very smart thing to do if you are actually suing someone. Also not a good thing to be joking around about either.
4 Likes
Yeah, the video was weird, but Stone has a history of weird cringey stuff like that.
4 Likes
Pretty glad I did; thereās more important news to follow than a junk food company making a tone-deaf decision.
I think I disagree. The video was pure 1st-amendment-supported āwe can put our opinions on this matter out thereā. This is a civil case, in a matter which will be decided by opinion, not by evidential proof, opinions can be viral, I guess heās hoping his opinion takes off. Yes, it mixed levity with a serious message, but I think it was appropriate for their intended audience. The āwill-he-wonāt-heā was a nice piece of suspence too. I canāt say I particularly like Stone beers, or Stone branding, but I can certainly say that that video made me respect GK despite any negative inferences I have drawn about his approach to beer.
The messed up thing about this is not his opinion piece, but in his (by proxy) official statement - the actual filing:
""" [ā¦]
INTRODUCTION
- Plaintiff Stone Brewing brings this trademark action to halt Defendant MillerCoorsās misguided campaign to steal the consumer loyalty and awesome reputation of Stoneās craft brews and iconic STONEĀ® trademark. MillerCoors recently decided to rebrand its Colorado Rockies-themed āKeystoneā beer as āSTONEā ā simultaneously abandoning Keystoneās own heritage and falsely associating itself with Stoneās well-known craft brews.
- Since 1996, the incontestable STONEĀ® mark has represented a promise to beer lovers that each STONEĀ® beer, brewed under the Gargoyleās watchful eye, is devoted to craft and quality. Like all Gargoyles, it is slow to anger and seeks a respectful, live-and-let-live relationship with peers and colleagues ā even those purveying beers akin to watered-down mineral spirits. But Stone and the Gargoyle cannot abide MillerCoorsās efforts to mislead beer drinkers and sully
(or steal) what STONEĀ® stands for. - STONEĀ® beer is beloved by millions of beer drinkers across America. Resolute and fearless, the brewery has always stood for a philosophy and approach that defies the watered-down orthodoxy of āBig Beerā companies and their fizzy yellow offerings. As Big Beer has stumbled in recent years, the Gargoyle has thrived. STONEĀ® is one of the most recognizable and popular craft beer brands in the U.S. and the global standard bearer for independent craft beer, with sales in all fifty U.S. States and across five continents
[ā¦] āā"
Since when did this become how lawyers communicate to a court? The personification, at length, of the Gargoyle - which isnāt even a gargoyle, itās a grotesque - is inane. Ditto language like āawesome reputationā, ābeers akin to watered-down mineral spiritsā, āwatered-down orthodoxyā, and āfizzy yellow offeringsā come straight out of middle-school debate club, not professional adult lawyering. OK, itās just the introduction, and they do grow into long trousers for the meat of the claims, but still, to an outsider (who admittedly has seen this on other legal documents in the last year or so, and genuinely wonders when it became /de rigueur/) this looks little better than āMillerCoors is a poopyheadā.
Edit: it gets very interesting on p.12:
In millerās own words: āThe packaging features [ā¦] a can that plays up the āStoneā nickname.ā ā http://www.millercoorsblog.com/news/keystone-light-new-look-15-pack/. Iām no lawyer, but even I know the difference between a registered trademark, and a nickname. And then thereās a section on the pushing of the single-word āSTONEā designation in all kinds of marketting contexts. It looks like MillerPoopyhead (hey, I can do that, Iām not Greg!) have gone out of their way to encircle themselves with mines, and then fired a BFG at their feet with this one. I know Stones are not entitled to a windfall, but I hope Miller go ouch after this.
Edit2: p.16:
"58. In September 2007, MillerCoors applied to register the mark āSTONESā with the USPTO for use in connection with Keystone Light (U.S. Serial No. 77/284,994). The USPTO refused to register the mark for the obvious reason that āSTONESā was likely to be confused with STONEĀ® when used on beer. The USPTOās office action explicitly cited the incontestable STONEĀ® registration as the basis for its refusal, putting MillerCoors on formal notice of Stoneās rights (in the unlikely event it was not aware of them already)
59. Tellingly, MillerCoors did not dispute the USTPOās determination that its āSTONESā mark would infringe STONEĀ® when used in connection with Keystone Light. MillerCoors instead abandoned its application, admitting that confusion with STONEĀ® beer was likely"
This level of stupidity should be punished.
1 Like
Can he not afford a beard trimmer? He looks like he really shouldnāt be working in the food industry. (And yes, this is pure PKB, I admit.)
3 Likes
