Stone Brewing Co. won a trademark infringement allegation, in which MillerCoors had allegedly redesigned its Keystone beer packaging to emphasize the word stone. How might consumer survey research be used in trademark disputes that involve location, packaging, visual emphasis, and brand recognition?
San Diego-based Stone Brewing Co., one of the country’s largest craft brewers, filed a trademark infringement complaint against MillerCoors, a subsidiary of Molson Coors Beverage Company. The complaint alleged that MillerCoors’s rebrand of the Keystone line, shifting from a mountain-range motif to packaging that highlighted the word Stone, infringed on Stone Brewing Co.’s mark and created consumer confusion. Stone Brewing Co. argued that marketing Keystone beer as “Stone” further heightened that confusion.
Keystone is positioned as a lower-priced beer compared to Stone Brewing Co.’s products, and MillerCoors asserted that the brands occupy distinct price segments. MillerCoors also argued that consumers had long abbreviated Keystone as “Stone,” and noted Keystone’s 1989 launch and Stone’s 1996 founding. According to MillerCoors, the lawsuit was a publicity maneuver rather than a legitimate claim of confusion.
A Watered-Down Decision?
Stone Brewing Co. presented consumer survey evidence at trial that focused on the visual similarity between the marks, brand associations, the “Stone” tagline, and spoken-word usage, in response to MillerCoors’s claim that “Stone” functioned as a common shorthand for Keystone. The survey expert also introduced video evidence showing consumers identifying “Stone Beer” on retail shelves.
MillerCoors countered with its own survey expert, who argued that Stone Brewing Co.’s evidence reflected concerns more aligned with trademark dilution than with infringement.
Likelihood of Confusion, Unfiltered
The court found sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to determine that infringement occurred. The jury awarded Stone Brewing Co. $56 million in damages, 25% of the amount sought. The court concluded that it “cannot say the verdict was unreasonable or against the ‘great weight’ of the evidence.”
In a 24-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez wrote: “While MillerCoors argues that ‘STONE’ never appeared alone on any packaging, it cannot deny or downplay the effect of de-emphasizing the full ‘Keystone’ mark in favor of emphasizing ‘a single, heroic element.’”
He continued: “While the marks are not ‘identical,’ they are nearly so; and while the goods are not ‘identical,’ they are certainly very closely related, both being beer, which ‘share the same aisle’ and compete for the same space at the average grocery store.”
If you are involved in a trademark infringement dispute and require reliable consumer survey evidence measuring likelihood of confusion, contact IMS Legal Strategies.
