By Thomas Pustelak
Beer: Where Creativity and IP Disputes Ferment
When people hear the phrase “intellectual property,” they tend to think of innovative technology and the logos of global corporations, not a precursor to civilization. Yet beer has interesting connections to intellectual property that run deeper than one might assume, and those connections extend into the frequently creative and rapidly maturing craft brewing industry. For context, the Brewers Association estimates that there were $28.8 billion in retail sales of craft beer across 9,796 craft breweries operating in the United States in 2024.[1] Craft beer illustrates how trademark law and intellectual property can influence a creative and crowded market.
Craft beer, like other industries, operates within a legal framework and there are disputes involving large companies and small companies alike. Unlike other industries, there are unexpected celebrity connections coupled with pop culture connections. And within all of this, there are legal lessons to be learned for non-lawyers and would-be brewmasters alike.
How Trademark Law Regulates Beer Branding
The Lanham Act, also known as the Trademark Act, was passed by Congress in 1946 and created a national system for trademark registration, supplanting the prior state-level common law system.[2] The Act established numerous provisions in the U.S. Code, including those that allow for civil actions and enforcement against use of words, names, symbols, or marks. that are likely to cause confusion, or misrepresent the origin of goods , or dilute another’s mark.[3],[4] These actions and enforcement extend to brewers.
To bring a civil action and enforce those trademark protections through the power of the courts, courts require standing. Currently, standing under the Lanham Act is determined in accordance with a test outlined in the Lexmark Int’l v. Static Control decision. Constitutional standing requires plaintiff suffered a particularized injury traceable to the defendant, it requires the plaintiff to fall within the zone of interests protected by the Lanham Act, and it requires the injury was proximately caused by the alleged violation. [5]
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) also has a role in the trademark legal framework by classifying various products into different classes and some of which are “coordinated” with other classes. As an example, beer (Class 032) is coordinated with wine and spirits (Class 033).[6] When filing a trademark, it can be useful to preempt potential disputes by searching coordinated classes as a mark in a coordinated class may result in consumer confusion with the new mark being filed, ultimately prompting a registration refusal and expensive change.[7]
Craft Brewers Face Industry Giants
The craft brewing industry is no stranger to the ‘big-versus-small’ dynamic that plays out in other industries. In a 2024 dispute of Stone Brewing v. Molson Coors,the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the district court’s decision that Molson Coors’ use of “STONE” on the labeling of their Keystone beer was likely to cause consumer confusion.[8] This decision resulted in an award of approximately $56 million in damages, including past and future lost profits and corrective advertising costs.[9] Although not explicitly stated by the court, this case aligns with Lexmark’s standing requirements and proximate cause from diverted trade. Stone Brewing’s interests were within the scope of the Lanham Act’s protected zone of interests and the harm to Stone flowed directly from that interest. At trial, Stone Brewing presented evidence of actual consumer confusion,[10] survey data demonstrating the likelihood of confusion,[11] and expert testimony regarding how long it would take for the decline in Stone’s sales to recover after a corrective advertising campaign.[12]
Consumer confusion alone will not be enough to win a trademark dispute, and as seen above, a longer-lived, larger company can still lose in court. In 1993, a dispute involved the Boston Beer Company, more commonly associated with the “Sam Adams” branded “family” of “Boston” beers defending its trademark against the Slesar Bros. Brewing Company, which used the name “Boston Beer Works” for its brewpub across from Fenway Park. Boston Beer Co. v. Slesar Bros.[13] The Sam Adams “family” of “Boston” beers needed to be protected against infringement as, in their view, Boston Beer Works was too similar to their use of “Boston” and “Boston Beer.” The district court ruled and the appellate court agreed that there was confusion between Boston Beer Company and Boston Beer Works but ruled for Slesar largely because geographic descriptiveness and lack of secondary meaning outweighed confusion evidence. [14] Secondary meaning requires that consumers associate the trademark with a single commercial source rather than as a primarily descriptive or geographic term. Despite consumer surveys showing consumer confusion, the Boston Beer Company did not win because it could not show their use of Boston rose above mere description or geographic association,[15] demonstrating that size or longevity does not guarantee success.
Sometimes the little guy does lose and sometimes the dispute does not t go to trial, as the two-day-long dispute of Lagunitas v. Sierra Nevada showed.[16] On January 12, 2015, Lagunitas filed their complaint alleging that Sierra Nevada’s IPA branding was too similar to Lagunitas own IPA.[17] However, the backlash in the court of public opinion caused Lagunita’s owner to tweet a decision less than twenty-four hours after filing, deciding to drop the suit on January 13, and making it official on January 14.[18] This case illustrates it may sometimes be more prudent to protect your reputation with the public rather than protect a design trademark of a commonly-used acronym as being a smaller company does not automatically garner public sympathy.
Lessons from Arizona Breweries
Arizona has also seen disputes in the craft brew industry in the 2010s. However, these disputes have decreased in number and severity as Arizona’s craft-brew industry continues to mature. Arizona demonstrates that noticeable examples of disputes can lead to awareness and result in improved legal consideration, which results in those reduced number and intensity of disputes.
In 2010, one of the largest employers in Arizona squared off against what would become one of the largest craft breweries in Arizona. Arizona State University sought to protect the “Sun Devil” trademark from use by San Tan Brewing Company.[19] The university recognized the necessity of federal rules requiring trademark owners to enforce their marks to maintain them, as well as not wanting their Sun Devil trademark to be associated with alcoholic beverages. This led to a contest to rename the brew, now known as Devil’s Ale.[20] In retrospect, the dispute may have been a positive outcome by providing publicity to San Tan and having a sense of humor in both directions helped things end amicably.[21]
A different dispute involved not simply unwanted association, or use of branding that could cause confusion due to misassociation, but the same name. Fate Brewing based in Boulder, Colorado filed suit against Fate Brewing in Scottsdale, Arizona after the latter opened a second brewpub and instances of consumer confusion at beer festivals.[22] Despite the Arizona brewery opening in November 2012, four months before the Colorado brewery opened its doors, the Colorado brewery had filed and been awarded trademarks to the name in June and August of 2012.[23] Demonstrating the importance of filing early, the Arizonian Fate rebranded to McFate until Fate in Colorado filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in November 2018 allowing McFate to acquire the rights to the name in 2019.[24]
Other clashes are not just intra-state or intra-name; some are intra-city as shown in Prescott Brewing Company v. Hometown Brewing Company over which brewery could claim to be the “hometown” beer. Prescott Brewing was founded in 1994 and argued that it had established a reputation and a mark as Prescott’s “hometown brewery” thus a different company forming a new brewery within Prescott in 2016 and naming it “Hometown Brewing” would infringe on their mark.[25] The day after the lawsuit was filed, Hometown Brewing Company abandoned the mark.[26] The lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed by Prescott Brewing a few months later.
Since 2016, there has been a relative scarcity of trademark disputes attached to craft beer in Arizona, not to say there are none. This scarcity suggests that brewers and would-be brewers entering the market are more cognizant of the need for IP diligence. Consideration of trademark protections and IP issues is preempting disputes, allowing brewers to focus on brews rather than legal issues.
Pop Culture References and Trademark Risk
Both within and outside of Arizona, craft beer’s culture of trying to stand out from the crowd can lead to referencing other famous trademarks along with pop culture personalities. Sometimes this leads to suits, sometimes it necessitates tweaks, and sometimes it requires a sense of humor to find a path of cooperation.
In 2018 and in defense of its hit TV show “Breaking Bad” Sony Pictures brought claims for dilution and infringement against Knee Deep Brewing due to their “Breaking Bud” IPA.[27] Knee Deep clearly referenced the show, due to labeling on the bottles and packaging, yet Knee Deep was surprised by the suit as the IPA had been sold for three years and had previously received a ‘call out’ from a Sony Representative in an email. Eight months later, Sony and Knee Deep announced they had settled their lawsuit on undisclosed terms.[28] Currently, Breaking Bud IPA survives unchanged and is still available for sale with the same imagery on Knee Deep’s website.[29]
Another suit that resulted in an undisclosed settlement was Guns N’ Roses v. Oskar Blues in 2019. As Oskar Blues had been selling “Guns ‘N’ Rosé” the rock band brought claims for infringement, dilution, unfair competition, and misappropriation.[30] The suit resulted in a settlement.[31] Neither side announced terms of the settlement, although Oskar Blues abandoned the trademark.[32]
Not all disputes need formal lawsuits. Sometimes a simple cease-and-desist can prompt a quick resolution. A collaboration between Veil Brewing and Trillium Brewing produced the imperial IPA “Extra Kreme” that was evocative of the Dunkin’ Donuts logo.[33] The alleged mimicry resulted in related advertisements and images being pulled within a week.[34] Another incident of quick cease-and-desist resolution involved Armistice Brewing’s “Mary Berry” Pastry Stout. Armistice tagged the Great British Bake-Off celebrity on Instagram, alerting her to their product and resulting in a change to their already printed label and renaming the stout to “Cease and Desistberry.”[35]
The pursuit of creativity and avoiding referencing other trademarks or celebrities, and illustrating how crowded this creative industry can be, sometimes results in beers referencing another beer without intention. This occurred in Magic Hat Brewing v. West Sixth Brewing. In May of 2013, Magic Hat filed a suit against West Sixth due to logo similarity.[36] The dispute played out in part on social media, which was likely unfavorable for both companies, as their mediated settlement acknowledging logo tweaks included a joint statement retracting previous statements and that it was the last public communication either side would make regarding the dispute.[37]
Rather than hashing everything out on social media, rather than settling for undisclosed terms after filing with the court, sometimes companies can take a different path so cooperation can occur. This is what happened in 2019 with Smartmouth Brewing’s “Saturday Morning” IPA, inspired by General Mills’ Lucky Charms cereal, with a label evoking that cereal and created without first consulting General Mills.[38] General Mills’ lawyers approved a one-time release and requested that the design and promotional materials be changed.[39],[40] Striking a cooperative attitude with General Mills and making adjustments such as changing the label from red to green along with different marshmallow symbols, Smartmouth was able to continue releasing Saturday Morning without legal incident.[41] It is now an annual release, with the most recent 7th release not available in stores and occurred in March 2025.[42]
Trademark Lessons for Craft Brewers
It has been said that the best lesson is when you learn from another’s mistakes rather than committing the mistake yourself. There are lessons these episodes illustrate that craft brewers, and anyone who has an interest in trademarks, can learn.
The first is to conduct early and thorough searches to determine whether your proposed name already exists. The USPTO has a helpful search engine available, use it. Be sure to check any coordinated classes for your new name as well. And if your mark is available, you should get started on that federal registration as soon as possible.
Another lesson is to secure licenses and agreements for those crafty collaborations and punny puns. It is not safe to assume that simply because your brand is local or small your potential infringement will go unnoticed. You would not want someone to use your own work, brand, or IP without at least speaking with you first, so do not do that to someone else.
That connects with another lesson: think ahead to how your community, your customers, and potential customers may perceive your use of a trademark, whether it is your completely original name or something that relies a bit on a name that already exists. Community backlash can be real and should influence any decision you make about whether you want to use a name or mark.
The most important lesson may be this: even if you are in an industry known for creativity and whimsy, take your creativity and whimsy seriously. Brewers, and creative people in general, should use a proactive IP strategy to allow themselves to focus on innovation and making the best beer possible rather than becoming distracted by litigation. Hopefully, this article offers a perspective to ponder the next time you are enjoying an intellectual property ale.
[1] Brewers Association reports 2024 U.S. craft brewing industry figures, Brewers Ass’n.(Apr 15, 2025), https://www.brewersassociation.org/association-news/brewers-association-reports-2024-u-s-craft-brewing-industry-figures/.
[2] 15 U.S.C. §§1051–1141n., Cornell Law School, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/lanham_act (last visited Jan. 31, 2026); Lanham Act, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanham_Act (last visited Jan. 31, 2026).
[3] 15 U.S.C. § 1125.
[4] 15 U.S.C. § 1127.
[5] Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118, 125, 132–33 (2014).
[6] Using coordinated classes in your federal trademark search, U.S. Pat. and Trademark Off., https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/search/using-coordinated-classes-your-federal-trademark-search (last visited Feb 15,, 2026).
[7] Likelihood of Confusion, U.S. Pat. & Trademark Off., https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/search/likelihood-confusion (last visited Jan. 31, 2026).
[8] Stone Brewing Co., LLC v. MillerCoors LLC, No.: 3:18-CV-00331-BEN-MDD, 2023 WL 6237969, at *1, *5 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2023), order corrected and superseded, No. 3:18-CV-00331-BEN-MDD, 2023 WL 6450199 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2023), aff’d sub nom. Stone Brewing Co., LLC v. Molson Coors Beverage Co. USA LLC, No. 23-3142, 2024 WL 5244556 (9th Cir. Dec. 30, 2024).
[9] Id. at *7.
[10] Id. at *4.
[11] Id. at *6.
[12] Id. at *8.
[13] Bos. Beer Co. P’ship v. Slesar Bros. Brewing Co., 9 F.3d 175 (1st Cir. 1993).
[14] Id.
[15] Id.
[16] Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial, Lagunitas Brewing Co. v. Sierra Nevada Brewing Co., No. 3:15-cv-00153-EDL, 2015 WL 150441 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2015).
[17] Reid Ramsay, Lagunitas Files Legal Complaint Against Sierra Nevada [UPDATED], Beer St. J., https://beerstreetjournal.com/lagunitas-files-legal-complaint-sierra-nevada/.
[18] Opinion: Agitation over litigation. The unfortunate side-effect of supporting an evolving craft beer industry and why it’s not going away, Nw. Beer Guide (Jan. 14, 2015), https://www.northwestbeerguide.com/home/2015/01/opinion-agitation-over-litigation.html.
[19] Rheyanne Weaver, University takes on brewery in trademark dispute, The State Press (Jan. 18, 2010, at 5:00 PM MST), https://www.statepress.com/article/2010/01/university-takes-on-brewery-in-trademark-dispute.
[20] MXSW, ASU official wins SanTan’s beer-renaming contest, Mouth by Sw. (Feb. 2, 2010), https://mouthbysouthwest.wordpress.com/2010/02/02/asu-official-wins-santans-beer-renaming-contest/.
[21] Jess Harter, Arizona Beer Class: SanTan Devil’s Ale, Mouth by Sw. (July 17, 2014), https://mouthbysouthwest.com/2014/07/17/arizona-beer-class-santan-devils-ale/.
[22] Lauren Saria, Fate Brewing Company in Scottsdale Is Being Sued by a Colorado Brewery of the Same Name, Phx. New Times (Aug. 26, 2015), https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/food-drink/fate-brewing-company-in-scottsdale-is-being-sued-by-a-colorado-brewery-of-the-same-name-7598264/.
[23] Jonathan Shikes, Boulder’s Fate Brewing Sues Arizona Brewery of the Same Name Over Trademark, estword (Aug. 26, 2015), https://www.westword.com/food-drink/boulders-fate-brewing-sues-arizona-brewery-of-the-same-name-over-trademark-7070309/.
[24] Scott Davidson, McFate Brewing Acquires the Rights to Fate Brewing Name, Porchdrinking.com (Apr. 24, 2019), https://porchdrinking.com/articles/2019/04/24/mcfate-brewing-acquires-the-rights-to-fate-brewing-name/.
[25] Foley Hoag LLP, A Trademark Year In Wine And Beer 2016: Our Holiday Buyer’s Guide To Disputed Beverages, JD Supra (Dec. 6, 2016), https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/a-trademark-year-in-wine-and-beer-2016-96015/.
[26] HOMETOWN BREWING CO. PRESCOTT, ARIZONA EST. 2016 – Trademark Details, Justia (July 12, 2016),https://trademarks.justia.com/870/40/hometown-brewing-87040626.html.
[27] Ashley Cullins, Sony Sues Brewer Over “Breaking Bud” Beer, Hollywood Rep. (Apr. 17, 2018, at 5:34 PM), https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/sony-sues-brewer-breaking-bud-beer-1103620/.
[28] Breaking Bud, Courthouse News Serv. (Jan. 12, 2019),https://www.courthousenews.com/breaking-bud/.
[29] Breaking Bud, Knee Deep Brewing, https://kneedeepbrewing.com/beers/breaking-bud (last visited Jan. 31, 2026).
[30] Ashley Brandt, Here’s the full complaint with exhibits in the Guns N’ Roses lawsuit against Canarchy over the Oskar Blues Guns ‘N’ Rosé beer – #GunsNRose, Libation Law Blog (May 10, 2019), https://libationlawblog.com/2019/05/10/heres-the-full-complaint-with-exhibits-in-the-guns-n-roses-lawsuit-against-canarchy-over-the-oskar-blues-guns-n-rose-beer-gunsnrose/.
[31] Jonathan Stempel, Guns N’ Roses settles lawsuit over Guns ‘N’ Rosé beer, Reuters (Aug. 13, 2019, at 12:14 PM MST), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-music-guns-n-roses-beer-lawsuit/guns-n-roses-settles-lawsuit-over-guns-n-ros-beer-idUSKCN1V31XL/.
[32] Guns N’ Roses, No. 91247205, 2019 WL 2052658 (May 7, 2019).
[33] Reid Ramsay, Awesome can design: The Veil Brewing Extra Kreme, with Trillium Brewing, Beer St. J. (Mar. 9, 2017), https://beerstreetjournal.com/the-veil-brewing-extra-kreme/.
[34] Byron Roth, Fly Like an Eagle — Breweries Avoid Trademark Infringements with Fast, Direct Sales. For Now, Good Beer Hunting, https://www.goodbeerhunting.com/sightlines/2018/2/5/fly-like-an-eagle-breweries-avoid-trademark-infringements-with-fast-direct-sales-for-now (last visited Jan. 31, 2026).
[35] California Brewery Releases Cease-And-Desist Berry Beer, Am. Craft Beer (Sep. 19, 2019), https://www.americancraftbeer.com/california-brewery-releases-cease-and-desist-berry-beer/.
[36] Valarie Honeycutt Spears, Brewer Magic Hat files federal lawsuit against West Sixth Brewing, Lexington Herald Leader (Nov. 12, 2015, at 2:18 PM), https://www.kentucky.com/news/local/crime/article44425182.html.
[37] Chris Furnari, Magic Hat and West Sixth Brewing Resolve Trademark Dispute, Brewbound (June 6, 2013, at 5:34 PM), https://www.brewbound.com/news/magic-hat-and-west-sixth-brewing-resolve-trademark-dispute/.
[38] Peter Jetton, Porter Hardy ’04L and Smartmouth Brewery Make News with Breakfast Beer, Wash. & Lee U.: The Columns (Mar. 6, 2019), https://columns.wlu.edu/porter-hardy-04l-and-smartmouth-brewery-make-news-with-breakfast-beer/.
[39] Id.
[40] Jeff Maisey, Monday Morning QB-ing Saturday Morning IPA, Veer Magazine, https://veermag.com/2019/03/monday-morning-qb-ing-saturday-morning-ipa/ (last visited Jan. 31, 2026).
[41] How Smartmouth Got Wise with Viral Sensation Release, Brewer Magazine (Feb. 19, 2022), https://thebrewermagazine.com/how-smartmouth-got-wise-with-viral-sensation-release/.
[42] Saturday Morning Marshmallow IPA Returns For A 7th Year!, Smartmouth Brewing Co., https://smartmouthbrewing.com/saturdaymorning (last visited Jan. 31, 2026).