Earlier this year, we discussed a trademark suit brought against Anheuser-Busch InBev by Patagonia, the famed outer-wear maker known best for its association with skiing and outdoor sports apparel. While we usually make a big deal about market separation when it comes to trademark enforcement, this case was notable for two reasons. First, the trade dress choices made by AB InBev for its "Patagonia" beer were quite similar to Patagonia's trademarks, not to mention that AB hosted popup locations at skiing and biking locations to sell its beer, exactly where Patagonia is so well known. Second, AB is a notorious trademark hound, gobbling up all kinds of marks and then wielding them like a cudgel against small entities. If anyone were going to be sensitive to the trademark rights of others, you would think it would be a company like AB. But not so much.
Rather than admitting its error and siding for strong trademark rights, however, AB InBev decided to try to get the lawsuit tossed by claiming that "Patagonia" is not actually well known and therefore should not be afforded federal trademark rights. The court took 20 pages to decide that AB InBev was wrong and that the case would move forward.
U.S. District Judge Virginia A. Phillips disagreed, writing in a 20-page order Tuesday that Patagonia has – at this stage in the proceedings – sufficiently shown its mark is both “famous and distinctive” and that promotion of its brand has factored in its $10 billion in sales since 1985.
“Assuming these allegations are true and construing the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that its Patagonia mark is “famous” for purposes of its federal trademark dilution,” Philips wrote.
The sales numbers are really all that was required to refute AB's ridiculous claim. Anecdotally, I can say that I haven't been to a ski mountain in a decade or so, and even I am fully aware of Patagonia's brand. The company has been around forever and is a common sight out west.
The court also refused to dismiss on AB's claims that it in fact had not abandoned its Patagonia trademark by not using it for half a decade and that there would be no confusion by the public that its "Patagonia"-branded beer would be confused with the clothing company.
Phillips also denied Anheuser-Busch’s request to dismiss on grounds that Patagonia failed to show that customers would associate their beer with its clothing and its brand of environmentalism. The brewer likewise failed in its argument that it had not abandoned the Cerveza Patagonia mark from Warsteiner despite not using the mark for five years.
Rob Tadlock, a member of Patagonia’s legal team, applauded Phillips’ ruling as “a well-reasoned opinion rejecting Anheuser-Busch’s effort to avoid defending Patagonia’s claims, including that Anheuser-Busch committed fraud on the Trademark Office and has deliberately tried to confuse customers into thinking that Patagonia Cerveza is produced by Patagonia, rather than Anheuser-Busch.”
Again, where is AB's strong stance on trademark in this case in which it is the one that appears to have run afoul of another's trademark rights? To the shock of this writer, it appears the company has something of a "trademark for me, but not for thee" philosophy.
Filed Under: beer, outdoor gear, patagonia, trademarkCompanies: inbev, patagonia