Pabst and MillerCoors Taking It to Trial This Fall

Pabst Brewing and MillerCoors have been in a legal dispute over an impending 2020 contract renewal and will go to trial this November according to CNBC.
            MillerCoors has brewed for Pabst under contract for many years, making well-known Pabst beers such as Pabst Blue Ribbon (PBR).  However, MillerCoors may terminate their contract with Pabst in 2020, citing potential capacity issues.
            Pabst has a lot to lose and has already begun to fight hard against contract termination by MillerCoors. Among the potential losses for Pabst are intellectual property rights. Specifically, the trademark system is a use it or lose it system in the U.S., and Pabst could be at risk of losing trademark protection if marks go unused for too long.
            That being the case, if the contract with MillerCoors is terminated, Pabst may be in the expensive situation of quickly procuring a brewing facility, both to meet sales orders and to protect their trademark rights. Further complicating the situation, Pabst products are in the value beer category, making cost efficiency extremely important.
            Co-packers are common in the food and beverage industry and can be a great option for start-ups or businesses growing quickly. Co-packers may be especially appealing to brand-forward businesses, as the co-packers handle manufacturing details and allow businesses to focus on sales and marketing.
            However, when your business is brand-focused (as in Pabst’s situation), supply chain contracts are critical. Although supply chain and branding protection may not seem closely related, as discussed above, they directly impact each other.
            So, as you develop manufacturing agreements, take into account the intellectual property portfolio of your business. By taking this big picture approach, supply chain contracts may be proactively structured to reduce their impact on your intellectual property rights.

Popular posts from this blog

Surprising Uses for Oobleck

Image
Oobleck is a common name for a non-Newtonian fluid comprising cornstarch and water. Named after a substance humorously described in Dr. Seuss’s classic children’s story, Bartholomew and the Ooblek, the cornstarch and water concoction is frequently used in children’s science classes as a fun way to learn about fluid mechanics. You may have fond memories, yourself, of playing with oobleck as a youth. Oobleck behaves as a fluid when touched gently, but becomes hard as a solid when hit with great velocity. For example, a person could run across a swimming pool of oobleck without getting their feet wet. However, if a person stood still on the oobleck, then they would slowly sink. Because oobleck is a children’s plaything and because of its simple recipe (cornstarch and water), one may be surprised to learn that inventors have attempted to patent serious industrial uses for the material. As an example, one current patent application, US 2015/0016885 (now abandoned), is for a system of fi...
Read more

Dispensing with the Formalities: Ex Parte Quayle Actions

Image
Checking my email after work one day, I was greeted with some unfortunate news: the application I was prosecuting had received yet another Office action.   Frustrated, I couldn’t resist skimming the substance of the rejection.   After all, like any patent practitioner, I thought my arguments were pretty irrefutable.   The news only got worse… or so it appeared.   The Office action was something called an “ Ex Parte Quayle action.”   Having never received one of these actions, I started mentally preparing myself to pull out the MPEP and research some arcane rejection. To my surprise, I didn’t find myself knee-deep in case law the following day.   Ex Parte Quayle actions, while somewhat inconvenient, are far from insurmountable.   In short, an Ex Parte Quayle action or “Quayle action” is issued when an application has objections remaining as to formal matters, but is otherwise allowable.   Accordingly, the mailing of these actions close...
Read more

Adaptive Headlight IP

Image
The recent Infrastructure bill signed into law by President Biden affects many things, but one aspect that affects the automotive world is adaptive headlights.  As noted by Jalopnik puts it somewhat crudely, this means “our headlights will suck way less” (link to https://jalopnik.com/finally-our-headlights-will-suck-way-less-1848067412 ). But with this sudden change, adaptive headlights in the US may be in for a particular messy IP situation since many companies may have considered it was not necessary to protect their adaptive headlight innovations in the US because of the 50-year old rule preventing such technology. Recent patents in the field from applicants such as Lumileds and Arex indicate that smaller players and startups may be able to break into the market which is expected to explode in the next few years once the final rules are implemented.  For those in the industry that have typically avoided US patent filings in the adaptive headlamp area, they may want to r...
Read more