Get all the craft data and analysis you need in one handy reference tool.  Craft Brew Guide brings you key brewer info, shipments and sales trends, to track the dynamic US craft brewing industry, plus much more.  This easy-to-use volume gives you the most data and best analysis available on the fast-growing craft beer segment.  In its second year the Craft Brew Guide will prove even more useful.  You’ll get even more info and analysis, and some strong new features at the same low price.  Click here for more info.  Click here to order. 

Oregon’s Ninkasi Brewing spent much of early 2014 completing construction on its new brewery in Eugene, so the co ended the year up 10.5% to 95,700 bbls, co-founder Nikos Ridge told CBN this week. That’s as the co announced it’s leaving pair of AB-owned branches in Washington and Oregon, as we first reported in Insights EXPRESS. In “super-competitive” home state of Oregon, Ninkasi’s depletions finished up mid-singles, Nikos shared. And a switch in the way it reports taxes means its state shipments data got a little wonky. But even so, the co “didn’t quite reach our targets” last year. Construction took up “a ton of focus that we didn’t have just on our core business,” Nikos told us, focus “we’re excited to have back this year.”

The year begins for Ninkasi with some distribution changes in key PacNW backyard. Beginning Jan 26, Ninkasi will move from Eugene-based AB branch to Bigfoot Beverage, craft-centric distrib founded by Pepsi bottler. Then on Feb 9, its Western Washington biz will go from branch to Odom Corp. “This move marks Ninkasi’s commitment to partnering with like-minded, craft-focused distributors in the region,” co said in release. As it’s “committed to being an independent and locally owned craft brewery,” Nikos thinks “we will be better aligned long term with independent and locally-owned wholesalers,” per release. Note that Seattle branch also lost Firestone Walker and Iron Hill recently. After AB’s purchase of 10 Barrel, how could competing craft brands like these expect to get same treatment? And what’s the impact on craft portfolios of other AB houses?

It certainly doesn’t take the AB network completely off the table. Indeed, Ninkasi is waiting on approval to begin distribution in Utah, “any day now,” Nikos told us, and it’ll be with Bud house General Distributing when that goes thru. Ninkasi just opened up Colo at the end of the year (with CR Goodman) plus Ariz in October with Golden Eagle. But it pulled out of Montana late last year too, a “tough state for us,” Nikos said. His co “never really felt like we got the momentum that we needed to be relevant there” or to “have the math to support” the market. In a state with “a lot of wholesalers” across a lot of territory but “low volume,” he added, “maintaining appropriate inventory” wasn’t easy, so resources spent there can go elsewhere.

Part of Ninkasi’s work in 2015 will be looking inward at “internal process improvement” and “strengthening up the company that we have.” Nikos and co look “not to grow as large as we possibly can,” but instead to become “a strong regionally-focused craft brewery.” The new brewery also means Ninkasi can spend more time making “new beers with our new capabilities” and “dedicate more resources towards some new fun things.” After switching up its summer seasonal last yr and taking its imperial red ale year-round, expect “a lot more single-batch and other beer projects” in 2015, including collab with Devils Backbone already announced. That doesn’t mean it’ll take energy off 12pks of flagship Total Domination IPA as well as special pack of Total Dom for Costco, both of which showed “really good trends,” Nikos shared. That’s encouraging, he said, as his folks are hearing plenty of beerfest attendees rebuff offerings of Total Dom because it’s already “in my fridge at home.”

While lotsa craft brewers posted double-digit gains last yr, Nielsen all-outlet data shows 7 of top-50 managed to grow their off premise biz (volume) by 50% or more.  Lagunitas is largest co by far to accomplish that high a growth rate, up 64.4%, 940,000 cases.  However, both New Belgium (up 30%, 1.2 mil cases) and Boston Beer’s Sam Adams portfolio (up 9%, 1 mil cases) gained more cases in 2014, while Sierra gained slightly less (+14%, 826,000 cases).  Founders and Firestone Walker each grew just under 80% and in top 25.  Ballast Point was only top-50 brewer to more than double biz (+128%). 10 Barrel grew 63%, and 8 ranks to #39.  Gotta note, CBN saw much higher 10 Barrel trend in separate data set (IRI) as recently as Sep, so it’s unclear if 10 Barrel slowed in final mos, or if data contrasts.  Uinta grew exactly 50% and Devils Backbone just about doubled, +98%, entering Nielsen’s top 50. 

Editor’s note: keep in mind this set of data separately counts Widmer (+2%), Redhook (-0.6%), and Kona (+13%), for Craft Brew Alliance, as well as Shiner (+4%), Bridgeport (-11%), and Trumer (flat) for Gambrinus.  Data doesn’t include Goose Island.

7 New Cos in Top-100 Then too, a chunk of hot regional brewers not quite in top-50 trending 50% plus, and seven of ’em newly entered top-100 (by volume) in Nielsen data.  OH’s Rhinegeist Brewing leaped onto list as 98th top co in its 1st yr in scans.  Pair of Oreg brewers were red hot in 2014: Hop Valley grew 468% and Laurelwood grew 391%.  Both cos leaped over 100 ranks vs last yr.  Resignation Brewery, CBA’s KCCO brand w/ The Chive, had largest rank leap, from 388th to 86th top brewer as it grew 2249.5% in 2014.  Revolution Brewing, outta Chicago, more than tripled (+211%) its biz in scans to reach over 100,000 cases sold.  And other two cos from opposite ends of the map, Maine’s Baxter Brewing up 162% and Wash’s Fremont Brewing up 122%, joined 100 top brewers. 

Other notable regional brewers growin’ 50% plus include: Georgia’s Terrapin up 58%, Fla’s Cigar City up 92%,  Tex’s Karbach Brewing up 101%, Foothills up 89%, Wasatch up 83%, and Atwater up 64%.

After about twelve hours of vitriol on social media, Lagunitas founder Tony Magee tweeted he’d “Drop the Infringement Suit” against Sierra Nevada (see yesterday’s issue). The “Court of Public Opinion,” as Tony called it, “the ultimate court,” ruled against Lagunitas. And the ruling wasn’t pretty. The public offered its verdict loud and clear thru a variety of online vehicles, at times using some very harsh language. As in previous public craft disputes, folks began threatening boycotts or referencing lost respect not only for Lagunitas but for Tony too. “Our flagship IPA’s registered federal trademark has limits,” he wrote on the Beer Advocate forum. On Twitter: “Today I was seriously schooled & I heard you well.”

Tony also noted that he’d been attempting to engage Sierra Nevada Ken Grossman in conversation over the labels for about a month, elsewhere in the Beer Advocate thread. So by the time the suit finally hit this week, Tony and his co had already spent considerable time and money with lawyers as well as a PR firm to insure they stood on solid ground. And up until a few hours before Tony sent out the string of Tweets backing down, he maintained on Beer Advocate that “the labels themselves are not the least bit similar, but the three letters are. identical? No. Similar? Profoundly similar? Yes.” But by the evening, there was a veritable snowball of social media criticism.  And Tony realized “we had totally misaligned ourselves with our consumers,” he told CBN. “There was a lot of energy around this,” added Tony and “I realized that if I engaged with it and acted decisively, I could turn it.”  And as soon as he did (and dropped the suit), according to Tony “the tide turned…. I realigned ourselves with what people wanted from us.”

Reminder of Twitter’s “Sharper Blade,” the Danger of Generic Marks and Sierra’s Strength  This is the second year in a row that Tony came out swinging over a new IPA from a larger craft company. This time, the Twitterverse fought back and won, seemingly cutting Tony with the same “sharper blade” he picked up just over a year ago when he suggested launch of Sam Adams Rebel IPA unfairly targeted his flagship IPA. While very different scenarios all in all, both highly public exchanges revealed Tony’s sincere belief in the significance of Lagunitas IPA, if not a heightened sensitivity to challenges to its stature and a willingness to fight for it.

A key difference between the incidents is that this legal scuffle depends on trademark law, a strange and complex corner of law already. Trademark holders are legally compelled to defend their marks. And Tony compared the Sierra’s action to if he “took the gold scroll” Sierra uses or “the Bass Ale red triangle” or “a Bud ‘crown’ logo” for Lagunitas artwork. Yet as some noted, Lagunitas’ trademarked design slips into “generic” territory. That is, “IPA” is a widely-used term to describe the most popular craft style. So defending a specific way of arranging those letters, which are now inherently associated with a style of beer, ain’t easy. Certainly not nearly as easy as defending scrolls, triangles or crowns, which have no inherent connection to beer or any specific style of beer.

Finally, the impact of the defendant’s position on the outcome of this Trial by Twitter cannot be ignored. In the minds of many commenters-cum-jurors, Sierra Nevada’s actions and founder Ken Grossman’s reputation could not be challenged. In the end, “the Customer is always right,” Tony wrote in his final Beer Advocate post about dropping the suit, a “maxim” he remembered “through the miracle of Twitter.” “The best thing is to have friends,” he concluded. “Can we say thank you?” 

As each of the top-3 craft cos – Sam Adams, Sierra Nevada, and New Belgium – introduce a handful of new yr-round beers that mostly fall under the IPA category, how will each of their more established IPAs – Torpedo, Rebel, and Ranger – fare in 2015?  Recall, this yr Sam Adams will extend the Rebel series to include Rebel Rouser double IPA and Rebel Rider session IPA; Sierra will intro Hop Hunter IPA (it’ll be interesting to see if/how lawsuit affects release), and its hoppy pilsner, Nooner; and New Belgium will intro Slow Ride session IPA. 

As IPA growth has exploded in last handful of yrs, it’s certainly not unheard of to have multiple yr-round IPAs growing at once for one company.  Plenty of craft cos have both a yr-round IPA and double IPA growing under the same roof, including NBB, which successfully intro’d Rampant Imperial IPA and sustained fast-paced growth in its second yr while Ranger IPA maintained solid growth, albeit with help from new mkts.  Lagunitas successfully intro’d DayTime IPA while flagship IPA maintained 60% plus growth in scans, and Stone IPA up 20% alongside intro of Go To IPA.  However it’s likely too early to tell if those session intros will have an effect on flagship IPAs, since each of those session IPAs still relatively small.  Either way, Lagunitas and Stone have 12 different IPAs tracked in scans between the two cos (Lagunitas has 7, Stone has 5), and virtually all grew last yr.  Stay tuned.

Also, lots happening with top-3’s spring seasonals: NBB is coming out with new spring seasonal porter, Portage; Sierra will release Beer Camp Hoppy Lager, theBeerCamp Across America "collab” with Ballast Point," as co's spring seasonal; and Sam Adams faces tuff comp with its spring seasonal, Cold Snap Wheat, after last yr’s big intro.  

2015 a Big Yr for Session Beer?Right off the bat it’s lookin’ like 2015 is gonna be a bigger year for session beer, with new Sam, Sierra and NBB session intros, as well as a handful of other top craft cos preparing to intro and/or ramp up their session brews.  Recall, all session IPAs were just 2.6 share of total IPA $$ thru Oct 5, 2014 in IRI data, mostly just 3 brands: Founders All Day, Lagunitas DayTime and Stone Go To (see CBN vol 5 no 74).  (Editor’s note: that number is likely a bit higher if you tease out various seasonally offered session IPAs from “seasonal” sales and variety pks).  Indeed, Session IPAs will likely get a big boost from Sam Adams new Rebel Rider and NBB’s Slow Ride IPA coming soon.  Then there’s Sierra’s Nooner Pilsner; not an IPA, but still playing off “session” trend. 

Meanwhile, Full Sail, Oskar Blues,  and Southern Tier are also bringin’ new session IPAs, Full Sail Session IPA, Pinner Throwback IPA, Right-O-Way IPA, to mkt in early 2015.  Gotta note, Full Sail has had separate line of various “session” beers for many years, tho only just intro’d its session IPA.  Boulevard Pop-Up Session IPA, Odell Loose Leaf IPA, and Flying Dog Easy IPA were all released yr-round last yr.  A handful of session IPAs have been around for a while, such as, Ballast Point Even Keel, and Uinta Trader Session IPA.  Another handful, including Firestone’s Easy Jack, Victory’s Hop Ticket, and Green Flash Citra Session IPA are examples of intro’d session IPAs that’re only available seasonally.  And there are plenty other session IPAs among the thousands of other smaller craft cos, plus limited release session brews that’ve been put out over the yrs, and will keep comin’.  Also gotta note, AB now has three regional session IPAs in its wheelhouse, with Goose Island Endless IPA (seasonal), 10 Barrel India Session Ale and Blue Point Mosaic Session Ale.  The session style still relatively small, but it’s certainly got grounds for growth. 

If you take a broader look at “session” beers, you’d include brands like Firestone 805 Blonde Ale and a bunch of Belgian style easy-drinkers: NBB Snapshot Wheat (intro’d in 2014), Shiner White Wing, Dogfish Head Namaste (both went yr-round in 2014), Sam Adams Cold Snap Wheat (seasonal), Bell’s Oarsman Ale or Brooklyn’s new ½ Ale.  Competition for Blue Moon/Shock Top? Also some Pale Ales are marketed as session beers, like Deschutes River Ale, New Glarus’s Moon Man Pale Ale, Anchor’s Small Beer, and 21^st Amendment’s Bitter American Ale.

Much more than 64 oz of discord filling up focus of beer folks in Florida. Currently under consideration: a (somewhat) “clean” growler bill in the state Senate that adds 64 oz as an acceptable container-size, a House bill that touches on growlers and amends about a dozen other statutes including some serious franchise reform (see below)and now a challenge from retailer assn, joined by two distrib groups, to the way state regulators have licensed small brewer taprooms. This latest action is causing the biggest hubbub, including widely differing views of potential outcomes.

“Clarification” Needed on Taproom Exemptions, Filing Claims  The Fla Dept of Biz & Professional Regulation (DBPR) has been authorizing brewery taprooms by misinterpreting two allowable exemptions, the retailer and distrib filing claims. The first, a “tourism exemption” put in place so AB could sell its beer at Busch Gardens park, allows manufacturing license-holders to conduct on- and off-premise sales at sites that have both a brewery and “other structures which promote the brewery and tourist industry of the state.” The second, a “brewpub exemption,” limits production to 5000 bbls per year. Retailers and distribs argue in petition that DBPR has “implemented a new class of license available to existing vendors that does not limit annual brewing production and that authorizes the sale of malt beverages for off-site consumption.” So groups want “clarification” of rules and whether DBPR has overextended itself with actions that “constitute unadopted rules” as well as “such further relief that is deemed just and proper.” Recall, Fla Beer Wholesalers Assn sought some similar clarifications during legislative session last yr, when these issues tacked onto growler bill.

Very unclear what fallout will be if court agrees with filing and what course DBPR will take in interim. Avid supporter of small breweries Sen Dana Young expressed concern that the agency won’t reissue any licenses until this legal action cleared up and “that’s inconceivable. That’s terrible,” she told Saint Peters Blog. “One hundred percent I believe that it can potentially shut down tasting rooms,” Cigar City’s Joey Redner said to same blog. Not so, said Mitch Rubin of FBWA: “This in no way affects anyone with an existing license.” Other distrib org, Beer Industry of Florida, “supports limited retail privileges for craft brewers,” per statement from exec director Eric Criss. But “we adamantly oppose the deregulation of alcohol.” Then too, assn believes filing “will not impact brewers who currently hold retail licenses.” Brewers ain’t buying it though. This filing “points out the hypocrisy of what it is they’re saying,” Joshua Aubuchon, exec director of Fla Brewers Guild, told us.

Kitchen Sink Bill Seeks Broad Changes to Franchise Relationships, Brewery Retail Licensing, More  (Note: the remainder of this article appeared in INSIGHTS Express earlier today.) In background of legal activity: a 50-page bill picking apart large swaths of current alc bev code in Fla. Bill would amend a dozen separate statutes that govern various aspects of making and selling alcohol in state, from taprooms and growlers to distillers and, most notably, franchise agreements. Uniquely, bill is brainchild of Rep Greg Steube and not the work of any single industry org. So also likely not a single industry org 100% ok with entirety of bill. Particularly distribs, as proposal overhauls current franchise relationships.

Key changes include 1) requiring written franchise agreements set for defined time periods of no more than 5 years; 2) speeding up timeline for termination notice, cure and implementation; 3) keeping current distrib protections to relations with “primary manufacturers” (50% or more of a distrib’s calendar yr volume) and giving significantly greater flexibility and freedom to move for smaller suppliers; and 4) moving  burden of proof for “good cause” terminations from suppliers to distribs. And that’s just a taste.  Tho bill would legalize broad array of growler sizes and self-distribution of up to 5000 bbls, it also limits number and kind of retail licenses brewers would be able to hold along with mfg license. Mostly focused on beer, bill also touches on broader alc sales policy and even seems to wade into craft spirits debate. Little chance law will pass as written, but extensive work of Rep Steube, without apparent influence of industry lobbyists, notable in and of itself.

This is a high stakes, time-pressured legal wrangle in Fed Court between 2 of nation’s largest craft brewers, ratcheting up craft vs craft and trademark issues several notches.  On eve of the launch of Sierra Nevada’s Hop Hunter IPA, its highest profile new product intro of 2015 (arguably Sierra’s biggest launch in several yrs), Lagunitas filed suit in Fed Court, charging trademark infringement of Lagunitas’ “IPA” design.  Lagunitas literally seeks to stop launch from happening, until its claims are redressed.  

Lagunitas complaint seeks emergency temporary restraining order and then a hearing on a preliminary injunction.  Editor’s Note:  preliminary injunctions are notoriously hard to get (because courts typically rule that harm can be recovered through money damages).  If Lagunitas can’t stop launch, then it will proceed to trial in effort to recover damages.  This latest trademark battle looks likely to be one of most high profile, expensive and messy in craft’s history.  

A Brief History Leading to Lawsuit Turns out Lagunitas sent Sierra a “cease and desist” letter on Dec 5, Lagunitas said in court filing (see below).  Sierra provided a formal response on Dec 11. “Although the parties discussed the issue further in an attempt to negotiate an amicable solution, no such resolution was reached, and when an impasse became apparent, Lagunitas promptly filed this lawsuit,” Lagunitas wrote.  Lawsuit filed yesterday by Lagunitas, which is represented by Nixon Peabody.  Sierra Nevada is using McDermott, Will & Emery.

A Quick Summary of Charges  Lagunitas alleges that Hop Hunter’s label design infringes on Lagunitas marks, not its name.  Lagunitas has no fewer than 4 elements/iterations of its IPA design trademarked. Hop Hunter IPA design elements “make a radical departure from Sierra Nevada’s traditional branding,” argues Lagunitas, showing pictures, “and have adopted the large all capital bold, black serif IPA lettering” of Lagunitas.   Indeed, Hop Hunter “so closely mimics” Lagunitas’s “trademarked design” that “consumer confusion is inevitable,” alleges Lagunitas.  That’s “particularly in light of” Sierra Nevada’s “reputation for ‘collaboration brews,’” adds Lagunitas, arguing that consumer could mistakenly consider Hop Hunter a collab between Lagunitas and Sierra.  Noted too that distribs who have both brands have “expressed concern” about potential confusion.

Lagunitas “founded on a culture of individuality, does not produce collaboration brews,” notes Lagunitas.  When Lagunitas started selling IPA, “on information and belief, no other company had marketed or sold its India Pale Ale with the acronym IPA.”  

By infringing on Lagunitas trademarks, Sierra will not only “cause confusion,” but “benefit unfairly from Lagunitas’ reputation and success” and gain “commercial value” and profits it would not otherwise get.  Lagunitas will in turn suffer “irreparable harm” via lost goodwill, loss of mkt share and “erosion of its intellectual property rights and an immeasurable blow to Lagunitas’ reputation as a market leader,” as Lagunitas founder/ ceo Tony Magee points out in separate declaration.  Lagunitas seeks, under fed, state and common law, injunction to stop Sierra from infringing Lagunitas trademarks and from “passing off Sierra Nevada’s products as being associated with and/or sponsored or affiliated with Lagunitas.” It also seeks damages, indeed, “treble its actual damages or Sierra profits, whichever is greater,” plus costs, atty fees, etc. 

What’s At Stake in Tony’s View Of the 599,000 bbls Lagunitas sold in 2014, IPA was over 55%. Lagunitas IPA is over 9% of total IPAs and around 2% of total craft biz in IRI. Lagunitas “as a company is gaining market share within the craft beer industry faster than any other company,” asserts Lagunitas in complaint.   Founder Tony Magee said on Twitter: “This is a course of action I did not want to take—I tried to work with Ken without success.  Deeply saddened and I wish it was otherwise.”  This lawsuit addresses a “question that needs to be answered,” said Tony to Craft Brew News, “especially in light of the proliferation of new IPA SKUs....  Branding is of paramount importance in beer.”  Here’s how he framed the issue to CBN:  “Can one of the progenitors of the modern IPA protect its identity from being subsumed by the tide of new entrants? Are the pioneering labels entitled to their legacy? What is in the commons and what is truly branded? For my part, as the leader and defender of our organization’s equities, I gots'ta know..!"

“Change Your Design,” Wrote Lagunitas Atty in Dec; Lagunitas Design “Not Unique At All,” Sierra Atty Shot Back   Lagunitas atty Rob Carrol sent Ken Grossman a “cease and desist” letter on Dec 5, pointing to Sierra’s “radical departure from its traditional label designs” and specific similarities to Lagunitas’ IPA lettering.  Sierra’s design appeared to be “intentional attempt to dilute Lagunitas’ mark and brand equity,” Rob wrote to Ken, basically laying out trademark infringement case he later made in lawsuit.  Rob’s letter demanded that Sierra stop “violating any of Lagunitas’ rights,” by “immediately” changing letter sizes and placement of “IPA” in the overall design, and selecting a new font that’s “distinct from the Lagunitas’ iconic ‘IPA’ lettering, including adopting a style that avoids weathered or worn lettering altogether.”

Sierra’s atty wrote back 6 days later, calling Rob’s charges “unfounded” and claiming that the “design elements” Lagunitas claims are “uniquely identifiable” with Lagunitas “are not unique at all.”  “Even at a cursory glance, whether up close or from afar, the two labels are starkly different,” wrote atty Jorge Arciniega.  Even if Lagunitas’ IPA lettering “look,” were “protectable as a source indicator,” which Jorge doubts, Sierra’s logo “does not possess the features that Lagunitas claims are uniquely its own.”  Lagunitas lettering is   “weathered,” for example; Sierra’s has “continuous and fairly smooth lines” which gives it a “fresh” look.  “There is nothing ‘aged’ or ‘weathered’ about it.”  Jorge also points to differences in the “styling” of the letters, how Sierra “superimposes” the name Hop Hunter on its brand, “a very significant and prominent feature of its design” and its use of the Sierra Nevada banner it uses on all brands. 

To the point that Lagunitas claims its lettering is unique, Jorge attached labels from a dozen other IPA brands that have similar looks to the Lagunitas IPA letters, with similar fonts and large size, similar spacing etc.  These brands include Eel River IPA, Silver Moon IPA, Just Beer’s IPA, Ale Smith IPA, Summit IPA, Six Rivers IPA, Southern Tier IPA and more.  “To sum up,” Jorge sums up, “most of the design elements that your client claims to be uniquely identifiable” with Lagunitas “are not unique at all ‒ indeed they seem quite commonly used by others.”  In addition, Sierra’s fresh IPA lettering “differs materially” from Lagunitas’ and “conveys a different overall commercial impression.”  So “no appreciable number of consumers” are likely to be confused.  While Sierra fine with “amicable resolution,” Jorge wrote, he was “at a loss” as to what that would be given that Sierra “did not intend to engage in any wrongdoing and apparently did nothing wrongful.”       

Sierra Nevada Intends to “Vigorously Dispute” Charges At presstime, Sierra issued statement that “we intend to vigorously dispute that any consumer could possibly confuse our Hop Hunter IPA packaging with anything that Lagunitas has.”  Conversation very active on Beer Advocate, Twitter and more, with many comments unfavorable to Lagunitas’ actions.  Stay tuned for further developments.  

This is a high stakes time-pressured legal wrangle in Fed Court between 2 of nation’s largest craft brewers, ratcheting up craft vs craft and trademark issues several notches.  On eve of the launch of Sierra Nevada’s Hop Hunter, its highest profile new product intro of 2015 (arguably Sierra’s biggest launch in several yrs), Lagunitas filed suit in Fed Court, charging trademark infringement.  Lagunitas literally seeks to stop launch from happening, until its claims are redressed.  

Lagunitas complaint seeks emergency temporary restraining order and then a hearing on a preliminary injunction.  Editor’s Note:  preliminary injunctions are notoriously hard to get (because courts typically rule that harm can be recovered through money damages).  If Lagunitas can’t stop launch, then it will proceed to trial in effort to recover damages.  This latest trademark battle looks likely to be one of most high profile, expensive and messy in craft’s history.  

A  Brief History Leading to Lawsuit Turns out Lagunitas sent Sierra a “cease and desist” letter on Dec 5, Lagunitas said in court filing.  Sierra provided a formal response on Dec 11. “Although the parties discussed the issue further in an an attempt to negotiate an amicable solution, no such resolution was reached, and when an impasse became apparent, Lagunitas promptly filed this lawsuit,” Lagunitas wrote.  Lawsuit filed yesterday by Lagunitas, which is represented by Nixon Peabody.  Sierra Nevada is using McDermott, Will & Emery.

A Quick Summary of Charges  Lagunitas alleges that Hop Hunter’s design infringes on Lagunitas marks, not its name.  Lagunitas has no fewer than 4 elements/iterations of its design trademarked. Hop Hunter design elements “make a radical departure from Sierra Nevada’s traditional branding,” argues Lagunitas, showing pictures, “and have adopted the large all capital bold, black serif IPA lettering” of Lagunitas.   Indeed, Hop Hunter “so closely mimics” Lagunitas’s “trademarked design” that “consumer confusion is inevitable,” alleges Lagunitas.  That’s “particularly in light of” Sierra Nevada’s “reputation for ‘collaboration brews,” adds Lagunitas, seemingly arguing that consumer could mistakenly consider Hop Hunter a collab between Lagunitas and Sierra.  

Lagunitas “founded on a culture of individuality, does not produce collaboration brews,” notes Lagunitas.  When Lagunitas started selling IPA, “on information and belief, no other company had marketed or sold its India Pale Ale with the acronym IPA.”  

What’s At Stake  Of the 599,000 bbls, Lagunitas sold in 2014, IPA was over 55%. Lagunitas IPA is over 9% of total IPAs and around 2% of total craft biz in IRI. Lagunitas “as a company is gaining market share within the craft beer industry faster than any other company,” asserts Lagunitas in complaint.   While calling this a “sad day,” founder Tony Magee views this action as critical and necessary.   This lawsuit addresses, a “question that needs to be answered,” said Tony, “especially in light of the proliferation of new IPA sku's.....Branding is of paramount importance in beer.”  Here’s how he framed the issue to CBN:  “Can one of the progenitors of the modern IPA protect its identity from being subsumed by the tide of new entrants? Are the pioneering labels entitled to their legacy? What is in the commons and what is truly branded? For my part, as the leader and defender of our organizations equities, I gots'ta know..!"

Sierra Nevada’s response:   .  Stay tuned for further developments.  

From the state that brought us the first strip club brewpub last year, a brewery in a circus arts theater is slated for 2015. In Ludlow OH, a “professional clown” named Paul Miller plans to open Bircus Brewing, a brewery within a converted theater, reported Cincinnati Enquirer.  In 2009 Paul purchased the building to be the home of Circus Mojo, a training ground and performance space for circus arts. Now he’s looking to create a unique kind of destination brewery, and use “beer revenue” to “provide gap financing for additional clown shows and outreach when revenues, grants and loans fall short,” as well as for various community charity projects, Paul told paper.  The idea actually came from a friend of Paul’s in Belgium who is doing the same thing under the same name, Bircus.  Paul hopes to begin brewing this Jul, and eventually “expand to bars across Kentucky and Ohio,” noted paper.   

As AB ships its sales and marketing out of town, owners of 20-yr old Morgan Street Brewery are hoping to bring some others in to take over their beer biz in St Louis. The brewpub owners put the biz up for sale last fall and updated listing price to $1.75 mil “for the business alone,” according to St Louis Biz Journal. They’d hoped to sell the biz plus 3 buildings with small brewery, restaurant and entertainment venue for over $5 mil all told. Morgan Street has revs of around $3 mil/yr with dining space for 125, 6 different bars and a catering space for up to 1200. “It’s a complex offering,” the biz advisor handling the sale told the paper. The site is near the waterfront downtown, just around the corner from the Edward Jones Dome stadium that the NFL’s Rams hope to leave for LA.