A federal judge in California tentatively dismissed a class action suit against MillerCoors on Wednesday. Plaintiffs in the suit—a class of Blue Moon purchasers—alleged that MillerCoors misled consumers into believing that Blue Moon is a “craft beer” by stating on the label that it is brewed by the “Blue Moon Brewing Co.” and by advertising it as “Artfully Crafted.” This ruling could become final as soon as today’s hearing.

Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California framed the issue narrowly: The question is whether MillerCoors is “specifically authorized” to list “Blue Moon Brewing Co.” as the manufacturer of Blue Moon on the beer’s labels. Judge Curiel answered that question in the affirmative, finding that Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (“TTB”) regulations “specifically permit a beer bottle and outer packaging to show, by label or otherwise, the name or trade name of the brewer.” Noting that California allows the “true name of a manufacturer” to include a “duly filed fictitious business name,” Judge Curiel held that MillerCoors’ use of “Blue Moon Brewing Co.”—a name properly registered as a fictitious business name in California—is specifically authorized by federal and state regulations. Accordingly, TTB’s approval of the Blue Moon label provides MillerCoors with a “safe harbor” from this type of litigation.

A few weeks ago, with little to no fanfare, we passed the 500 posts milestone. It has been a wild and fun ride since late 2008. This blog is now up to 512 posts as of yesterday. Google tells me Bevlog has had 555,404 visitors and 832,024 pageviews so far, with an average of 44 seconds per session.

The most popular posts are Tito, Blue Moon and Palcohol (with 37,587, 36,183 and 17,022 views respectively in the past two years). I am not sure whether the blog has led directly to any particular revenue, but it has put me on e.g., The Today Show and CBS News, and I don’t imagine any other (legal) way to accomplish that.

Some of the posts are fun and easy, and take no more than a few moments (examples). Others, somehow, take hours and hours — even if they seem so simple beforehand. I am pleased to report that we’ve heard of no substantial inaccuracies so far, and we’ve had very few complaints. One big company oh so smoothly asked for a clarification. One multi-billion dollar organization demanded a change but settled for something approximating a change in punctuation. Along the way I met Tito, the Hatfields (and McCoys), and E-40. And now we are pleased...

Last month the firedragon on the right sued the firedevil on the left. This month, the devil fired back.

Sazerac at first alleged that the labeling on the left, for Stout’s beer-type product, is way too similar to Fireball’s appearance, as used for many years on its top-selling Fireball cinnamon whisky. Sazerac’s lawsuit is no big surprise because Sazerac is quite aggressive, Fireball has a lot worth protecting, and umm the products do look quite a lot alike to this casual observer. Stout tends to say the products are not alike (only one has a glass bottle, a devil, is beer-like, is American). But even Stout does not go too far in saying the products don’t look alike.

Stout argued:

Sazerac’s claims are barred because the term “fire” and all of the claimed elements of the alleged FIREBALL Trade Dress described in the Complaint are used so frequently by third parties in connection with products characterized by a cinnamon or spicy hot taste that consumers do not perceive them as identifying or signifying any particular source. The use of “fireball” to mean a spicy hot cinnamon flavor is widespread across all manner of foods and beverages, including alcoholic beverages. For example, Atomic Fireballs [were] introduced in 1954. The term “fire” is commonly used to refer...