flavored malt beverage

If I recall right, TTB did not allow terms like “Tonic” or “Elixir” for many decades. This Thunderbird label, however, clearly shows that “Tonic” is okay these days. Way back, it apparently sounded far too close to a curative claim, as did “elixir.” TTB approved the above label on April 7th.

This label also seems noteworthy because it marks a return of Thunderbird, as an important brand, after almost 10 years without any approval within the TTB database. The new version of Thunderbird is a malt beverage with natural flavors. This is not easy to see. Can you spot the class/type statement off toward the upper right? Before the approval above, and two other versions, Thunderbird last appeared in the TTB database way back in 2008; then and since the 1950s, it was a flavored wine. This article has a lot of history about this important brand and suggests that U.S. law did not allow flavors in wine, until the dawn of this brand. This is yet another example of how brand names have jumped from one category to another, like Smirnoff jumping from spirits to malt beverages more than 16 years ago now.

The Washington Times and CityPages claim that TTB recently rebuffed a Minnesota brewer, in its efforts to hint about LSD on a beer label.

In doing so, the CityPages article took a few tough shots at TTB, calling them a “bunch of unchill tightwads,” “notoriously persnickety,” and describing the anatomy of people who work there, in an even less flattering way.

But if the label at issue looks anything like the above, why should a government agency give it a thumbs up? What’s the point of a review process, if it’s so porous that an LSD label would go through? By contrast, this one looks to be the version that did go through, and I really don’t think it’s so bad, or such a gross imposition on free speech. This seems like a good balance; the approved version certainly gets the point across, in a slightly more subtle way.

Even the brewer seems to acknowledge the above name might go too far, saying “With the name, I think we were pushing the envelope, too. Unfortunately, the envelope broke.”

At long last, MillerCoors filed its response, in the Blue Moon case, on July 13. The company makes some good arguments, and to my ear, these seem best:

1. MillerCoors is expressly authorized by state and federal law to use the Blue Moon Brewing Company trade name.
   1. The safe harbor doctrine applies where either state or federal law has blessed the conduct at issue. (Here, MC nemesis, A-B, did the former a huge favor in the form of winning the Lime-A-Rita case just in time.) The company is careful to point out that the laws and regulations, not necessarily the label approvals, create the safe harbor.
   2. Should a court find liability under these circumstances, where a registered trade name is used instead of the parent company name, it would dramatically change the way that many corporations operate, effectively standing corporate America on its head. Trade names are used in many industries, and many brands have surprising corporate relationships. Just to name a few: Jiffy Lube is owned by Shell Oil Company, Haagen-Dazs is owned by Nestle in the U.S., Taco Bell and Kentucky Fried Chicken are owned by Yum! Corporation and Ben & Jerry’s ice cream is owned by Unilever.
2. The company’s trade name and trademark registrations put Plaintiff...