BATTLE OF BREWERS GOES TO JURY
Panel to decide whether Keystone brand infringed on Stone’s trademark
Since Keystone Light launched its “Own the Stone” rebranding campaign in 2017, San Diego’s Stone Brewing says its sales have declined nearly 20 percent off its peak.
Does that dropoff stem from confusion created from MillerCoors — now Molson Coors — hijacking Stone’s trademarked brand name for its budget Keystone Light beer?
Or is the decline attributable to growing craft beer competition, Stone’s high prices, the brewer being late with beverages aimed at the hard seltzer craze or even COVID-19 lockdowns?
Lawyers for Stone Brewing and Molson Coors argued those points Wednesday as they made their final pitches to an eight-person jury in the trademark infringement case in San Diego federal court.
Millions are at stake as the jury began deliberations after a threeweek trial that a U.S. District judge in San Diego called “one of the most contentious cases I’ve ever experienced, and I have had trademark/ trade name cases before,” according to court records before the trial began.
Stone Brewing’s experts contend Keystone’s “Own the Stone” campaign cost it $174 million in lost profits over the years.
Moreover, Stone, the nation’s ninth-largest craft brewery, is seeking $41 million for “corrective advertising” to clear up confusion from the 5 billion Keystone cans and other packaging in the marketplace that allegedly infringe on Stone Brewing’s trademark.
Those cans and boxes de-emphasized “Key” and enlarged “Stone,” separating the combined words for the first time in Keystone’s 35-year history, according to Stone Brewing.
Because of this alleged infringement, Stone Brewing contends Keystone co-opted its brand — blunting its reputation and growth, said lawyer J. Noah Hagey of Braun, Hagey & Borden.
“They have swamped Stone’s name” said Hagey, who called the Own the Stone campaign one of the most profound corporate thefts of a
trademark ever. Stone Brewing alleges the campaign’s success generated nearly $765 million in profits for Molson Coors.
In contrast, lawyers for Molson Coors argued that Stone Brewing failed to clear a key legal hurdle needed to prove its case — that the Own the Stone rebranding of Keystone created confusion in the marketplace.
The packaging of the two brands doesn’t look anything alike, said Jonathan Bunge of Quinn Emanuel, Urquhart and Sullivan, who represented Molson Coors.
The beers are also priced differently — with Keystone targeting lower-income beer drinkers in middle America, while Stone Brewing is aimed at more affluent craft beer fans mostly in Southern California.
Keystone sells less than 1 percent of its beer in Southern California, said Bunge.
He attributed at least part of the turnaround of Keystone not to the Own the Stone campaign, but because it launched a 15-pack instead of a 12-pack, which appealed to budget-conscious consumers.
Bunge also cast doubt on anonymous social media posters who claimed to be confused — emphasizing that the premise of Stone Brewing’s case was false.
“At the end of the day, if there is no confusion, there is no case,” he said.