A federal judge in California dismissed a class action suit against Jim Beam on August 21, 2015. The suit—Welk v. Beam Suntory Import Co.—concerned whether Beam’s use of the term “handcrafted” on its Bourbon labels is misleading to consumers. The court’s holding—that it is not misleading—and the case’s dismissal mark yet another win for Beam in a series of consumer fraud suits that have been brought against it (as well as a host of other alcohol producers) since 2014. Beam also did very well in this similar case, concerning Maker’s Mark.

Welk began back in February 2015, when Plaintiff Scott Welk filed a class action complaint alleging that Beam’s use of the term “handcrafted” on its Bourbon labels was misleading. According to Welk, “handcrafted” means “created by a hand process rather than by a machine.” Welk argued that the “mechanized” and “automated” process that Beam uses to make its Bourbon could not fairly be characterized as “handcrafted.”

In its defense, Beam claimed that TTB federal approval of its label provided it with a safe harbor that insulated it from label-related consumer fraud claims. Beam also argued that reasonable consumers are not actually misled by the term “handcrafted” because it is merely puffery that is not relied upon by consumers when they make their decision...

I have been a lawyer for almost 30 years now. We don’t handle a lot of litigation — but this controversy du jour raises a question. Do not court claims need to pass some red face tests? Can we allege just about anything we want, if we have a PC and a filing fee? AKA:  Does this (above) look like Bud to you? If not, should legal theories be so divorced from reality that a multinational company should be able to tell a tribunal that it does?

Bud has recently alleged that the above labeling and theming tends to confuse people about how closely this beer relates to “The King of Beers.” In the August 19, 2015 TTAB Opposition, A-B lashes out, claiming that The Queen of Beers has no COLAs:  “upon information and belief, Applicant had not applied for – and still has not applied for – a federal Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau label for its beer, which label is required to distribute alcohol interstate in the United States.” But A-B should definitely get a copy of LabelVision. With LabelVision it took less than a minute to find several such Queen of Beer COLAs, issued more than six months ago, for the She Beverage Company of Lancaster, California (defendant/applicant).

A-B claims it has...

Here we are, checking in a year later, after this post on GMO labeling. TTB still does not allow GMO labeling of the sort depicted above. This sort of labeling seems to be sweeping across the grocery store, but not in the alcohol beverage aisle. We have at least two bases for saying this. First of all, there is this recent Needs Correction (NC) notice. It says the GMO talk is misleading, therapeutic and not acceptable.

Second, we checked through LabelVision and see essentially no GMO-related labels. It is pretty amazing that few if any seem to have slipped through, even though this list tends to say quite a few alcohol beverage products meet the Non-GMO Profect standards.

This NC notice is good because it also happens to cover a few other issues. It reminds us that grape varietal terms should not be used on flavored wine products. It also reminds us that if you have something like a margarita-flavored wine product, it may be necessary to clearly mention that it’s a “wine cocktail.”

In past years Dan was talking about beer law in magazines, podcasts, CLEs, on forums, and on Twitter. Now he has moved on, to radio. He was on CBS radio earlier this week, with Stacy Lyn, regarding the dramatic rise of craft brewing. Listen to Dan Christopherson and Stacy in the sound clips below. In a few years it will be hard to believe, but Dan notes that (in recent generations) “there weren’t any production breweries in the DC area until … 2011.”    

This may be the very label for which the “speaks for itself” tag was invented.