Responding to Stone Brewing Co.’s trademark infringement suit in which Stone says it objects to MillerCoors Brewing Co.’s “verbatim copy(ing)” of the Stone trademark, MillerCoors asked a Federal judge to declare that MillerCoors has an “exclusive right to use Stone or Stones in connection with marketing beer.
“What Stone Brewing actually objects to is MillerCoors’ use of the Keystone mark on Keystone cans and outer packing,” MillerCoors says in a counterclaim. “Stone Brewing’s arguments depend entirely in disassembling MillerCoors’ Keystone trademark, focusing only on the Stone portion while ignoring the “Key” portion that is prominently visible on both the cans and outer packaging.”
“MillerCoors began using and obtained a federal trademark registration for Keystone nearly a decade before Stone Brewing registered Stone,” the counterclaim says, adding:
“Keystone and its customers have long referred to Keystone as ‘Stone and cans of Keystone as ‘Stones; MillerCoors use of Stone and Stones in advertising predates Stone Brewing’s use.”
Not only that, the MillerCoors response says, but Stone Brewing actually raised the issue in 2010, and MillerCoors rejected Stone’s complaints. “Stone Brewing waited eight years to file this lawsuit.”
The MillerCoors counterclaim says Stone Brewing’s complaint “relies on misleading images to support its verbatim copy” claim.”
“MillerCoors has not abandoned the Keystone mark . . . in favor of a brand centered entirely on one word: ‘Stone.’ Instead, Stone Brewing has chosen only to include images in its Complaint that misrepresent the look of Keystone cans and packaging. MillerCoors has not removed the ‘Key’ from its Keystone trademark.”
The counterclaim goes on:
“Stone Brewing’s misleading and meritless claims show this case is not actually about trademarks. This case is not about “verbatim copy[ing],” but Stone Brewing’s struggle with its new identity as a global mega-craft beer manufacturer.
“Gone is the small Stone Brewing of old. Today, Stone Brewing is one of the largest brewers in the United States, and its beer is sold on five continents. In the last few years, Stone Brewing has aggressively expanded by opening breweries in Virginia and Berlin, Germany. A private equity firm recently invested $90 million in a Stone Brewing venture.
“In 2016, the famed brewmaster behind Stone Brewing’s beers, Mitch Steele, quit the company, explaining that Stone Brewing had become too big: “I wasn’t planning on leaving, but you know, as these breweries get bigger and bigger, you struggle with the fact that you get further removed from the brewing process. You become a manager, you’re a strategist; you’re doing practically everything but brewing.”
“Stone Brewing’s new size presents a problem for its executives,” MillerCoors says. “What does a company that was built around its opposition to “Big Beer” do when it becomes “Big Beer?” Stone Brewing’s solution appears to be to file this meritless lawsuit against MillerCoors.”
MillerCoors goes on to say no beer drinker would actually be confused between Keystone and Stone Brewing’s beers; they’re not targeted at the same consumers.
“But if there is any confusion between these two beers, MillerCoors’ rights are superior to Stone Brewing’s. MillerCoors used Keystone, Stone and Stones to sell Keystone beer prior to Stone Brewing’s first use of Stone.”
The counterclaim notes that “When (Stone Brewing) cofounders Greg Koch and Steve Wagner decided to adopt the moniker Stone Brewing in 1996, Coors was already selling Keystone beer nationally in cases labels Stones and running marketing campaigns advertising Keystone beer as Stone.
“MillerCoors did not ‘verbatim copy’ Stone Brewing’s trademark. If anything, it is much more likely that Stone Brewing copied the Stone name from Coors, since Keystone beer was already advertised as such in the market.”
And the counterclaim goes on to note the Greg Koch himself has acknowledge that you lose your right to enforce your trademark when you fail to protect it, and even if MillerCoors use of Stone or Stones in its Keystone ads “somehow conflicted with Stone Brewing’s Stone trademark, Stone never did anything about it.”
Among the remedies MillerCoors seeks is a declaratory judgment of MillerCoors’ exclusive right to use the Stone mark in the U.S.