We published a post on our sister Food Liability Law blog that has application to AB blog readers also. In the post, we review why popular chain restaurants have started publishing new menus with calorie and other nutrition information. The answer is to be found in the requirements of the Food and Drug Administration’s new
Five Important Trademark Lessons the Beverages Trade Learned in 2014
The folks at the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (“PTO”) received nearly half a million trademark applications last year. These applications included thousands of new filings by breweries, vineyards, wineries, and distilleries. Here are five important lessons we learned from last year’s decisions by various trademark tribunals about protecting and registering your mark in the beer, wine or spirits industries.
Continue Reading Five Important Trademark Lessons the Beverages Trade Learned in 2014
Despite What You May Think, “IPA” Really Could Have Been a Trademark for Beer
Can one brewery sue another to stop them from using a stylized version of “IPA,” a familiar acronym for the popular style of beer known as India Pale Ale? As you may have heard, the Lagunitas Brewing Co. just tried . . . and it didn’t go so well. But things could have worked out very differently if Lagunitas had raised its claims back in 1995, a time when Lagunitas says it was the only one using “IPA” to market an India Pale Ale.
On Monday, The Lagunitas Brewing Co. filed suit against fellow California craft brewery Sierra Nevada Brewing Co. for trademark infringement in an attempt to prevent Sierra Nevada from rolling out a new label for Sierra Nevada’s “Hop Hunter IPA”. Lagunitas claimed Sierra Nevada’s label depicted “IPA” in a style that was too similar to the way “IPA” appears on the label of Lagunitas’ flagship “Lagunitas IPA”.
Sierra Nevada’s design, Lagunitas argued, “uses all capital, large, bold, black ‘IPA’ lettering in a font selection that is remarkably similar to the Lagunitas design” and was likely to create confusion among consumers as to the origin of Sierra Nevada’s product.
By Wednesday, Lagunitas had dropped the case, citing the overwhelming public uproar over its claims: “Today was in the hands of the ultimate court; The Court of Public Opinion and in it we got an answer to our Question; Our flagship IPA’s registered federal trademark has limits.
Continue Reading Despite What You May Think, “IPA” Really Could Have Been a Trademark for Beer
U.S. Trademark Filing Fees to be Reduced in 2015
Great news! The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has announced that trademark application filing fees will be reduced by $50 per class effective January 17, 2015. The USPTO fee for standard electronic filings will be $275. The USPTO fee for electronic filings that use previously-accepted goods and services wording will be $225.
Application filing
Oregon Liquor Control Commission Given Job of Regulating Recreational Marijuana
Following in the steps of Washington and Colorado, Oregon voters passed Ballot Measure 91 (PDF) on November 4, opening the door to legalized recreational marijuana in the state. Beginning July 1, 2015, the Control, Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana and Industrial Hemp Act allows Oregonians 21 years and older to possess up to eight ounces
Spent Grains: FDA Proposed Rule May Cause Concern for Brewers
There has long existed a symbiotic relationship between brewers and farmers in which spent grains, a byproduct of the brewing process, are given or sold to farmers for use as food for livestock. A proposed rule regarding preventive controls for pet and animal food as required under the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) is causing
New California General Industrial Storm Water Permit Slated For Adoption on April 1, 2014 May Hold Surprises for California’s Wineries, Breweries and Distilleries
Today, the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) released for public comment its Draft Industrial Storm Water Permit and supporting documents. This is the fourth (and likely final) version of the Draft Industrial Storm Water Permit, which is designed to replace the existing Industrial Storm Water Permit issued in 1997.
The Draft Industrial
OLCC Proposes New Rules for Food Carts
The Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) is undertaking rulemaking that would impose new regulations on the service of alcohol at food carts and other outdoor areas throughout the state. The rules would distinguish between outdoor areas not abutting a licensed building (e.g., areas associated with food carts and food cart pods) and outdoor areas connected to a brick-and-mortar licensed premise.
Overall, the proposed rules would establish a clear licensing pathway for food cart applicants. OAR 845-005-0329 outlines the basis upon which the OLCC may refuse to issue a license, and OAR 845-006-0309 establishes the requirements a licensee must meet for alcohol service. While the proposed rules are fairly straightforward, some may criticize the rules for being too restrictive.
For example:
- The outdoor area must qualify for a Number III minor posting. This posting requires that the designated drinking area not constitute a “drinking environment and drinking alcohol will never predominate.” This would be a more stringent minor posting than that required for outdoor areas adjacent to a physical licensed building. Food carts would not be allowed to have outdoor beer garden areas or environments similar to a winery tasting room. A solution to this issue would be to revise the proposed rule to allow a Number IV minor posting (“Minors Allowed During These Hours ___ to ___”) or a Number V minor posting (“Minors Allowed Only with Their Parent, Spouse or Domestic Partner Age 21 or over”) when authorized by the OLCC on a case-by-case basis.
Oregon Liquor Privatization Rejected in 2014 Legislature
Late last week, Oregon lawmakers shot down SB 1559, a bill that proposed what some called a compromise on liquor privatization in Oregon. It would have allowed grocery stores 10,000 square feet or more to sell liquor from their shelves, while keeping the Oregon Liquor Control Commission in control of the supply. Lawmakers sent
Initiative 522 Defeated in Washington
Based on preliminary results from Tuesday’s election, it appears that Washington State’s hotly debated Initiative 522 (I-522) concerning the labeling of genetically-engineered foods has gone the way of California’s Proposition 37. Washington officials reported on Wednesday, November 6, 2013 that voters had rejected the measure, 54% to 46%. California’s similar labeling measure, Proposition