Stonewalling

A brand isn’t just a logo or a sign. Labels, color schemes, fonts are pulled together to form symbols for people to recognize. That’s not exclusive to the time spent staring at the coolers in your local packie, but it’s a lot of the focus when you’re talking brewery branding. 

Branding is money. Not just money coming into the business. A lot of money, not to mention time, goes into creating a brand. The saying, “You’ve got to spend money to make money” came from somewhere. Which is why no one wants to rebrand unless they absolutely have to.

It probably even takes more money to rebrand because you have to do a good enough job advertising the switch. Otherwise, you’ll have consumers like me looking at the cooler going, “Whatever happened to [insert brewery here]?” While standing right in front of the new can design.

A quick update on my Henniker debacle, they switched over in 2018. I went back and scrolled through their Insta to get the announcement post.

So with all of that investment, I get the desire to protect what has been created. Usually, I don’t think I’d be sitting here talking about brand infringement in a Thirsty Thursday post. But Stone Brewing (CA) has been making headlines with their efforts to protect the Stone brand. The whole thing seems odd and getting odder.

The story with Stone Brewing goes back a few years when they opted to go up against MillerCoors in court for trademark infringement. 

For reference, the definition of trademark infringement is:

“The unauthorized use of a trademark or service mark in or in connection with goods and/or services in a manner that is likely to cause confusion, deception, or mistake about the source of the goods and/or services.”

In 2017, MillerCoors had updated Keystone’s branding to emphasize the word Stone prominently on the brew’s packaging. In their cans, “stone” ran the length of the can in caps and huge font. The word “key” abutted “stone” but in a much smaller font. Because of the way courts move, this case is set to be heard this fall. Which would be news enough. MillerCoors isn’t what you’d call a small operation.

This case isn’t the one currently making a splash, though. Stone has been in the news because of another brand infringement suit- this one involving a brewery in Kentucky, called Sawstone Brewing. They opened their doors a year ago, making them a debutante with unfortunate baggage. The suit here isn’t so much about the labeling. Instead, the suit is taking aim at the budding brewery’s inclusion of the word “stone” in their name.

Here we are on a Thirsty Thursday talking about words. Sorry, beer and words intersecting, did you think I could resist?

Thanks to some, probably spiteful, research on Sawstone’s part, interested readers now have a list of all of the suits currently being pursued by Stone. Quite a catalog if you want to take a look-see. Not all of the suits are concerning the use of the word “stone.” There are also some contending the use of the word “bastard.”

It’s odd, really. This idea that words can be, essentially, owned. That’s not really what trademarking is, but this story has that feel to it. 

From the layman’s point of view, the whole thing seems ridiculous. I cannot fathom anyone being confused by Stone and Sawstone. They are two different words. Sure, one isn’t in the dictionary. I imagine that it is on purpose to have tried to avoid this situation in the first place.

I have a hard time seeing how Stone is going to come out victorious against MillerCoors. Keystone and any of Stone’s beers are world’s apart. If someone were to make a mistake and get these two confused, something tells me it would be a mistake made only once regardless of which side of the confusion you’re on. 

Personally, that would be a great time to be a fly on the wall. I imagine the facial expressions would be comedy gold.

I can’t judge the matchup between Sawstone and Stone, seeing as they don’t distribute, and there’s little chance of a road trip. But this too is a head-scratcher. Why bother nitpicking over the name of the place that might not make it out of COVID?

I do not wish Sawstone ill will here. I’m just looking at the current situation in every industry, let alone the craft beer industry. COVID has really thrown a massive wrench into things. Right now, survival is probably every brewery’s priority. Survival is possible with or without protecting the brand from a 3bbl brewery. But I’m not a businesswoman. What do I know?

While not a businesswoman, I am a consumer. Granted, I am a consumer outside of craft beer’s targeted market. What I’m about to say wouldn’t necessarily hold as much water as it would if Adam or any other white male millennial typed it.

There are always two sides to every story. I doubt we as spectators to this litigation will get all of the facts. However, what we do have at our fingertips does have an effect all the same. His blog post about the situation can be found here.

First, within his post, he addresses the harassment of his employees. I could feel his concern for his employees through his writing. Harassment of any kind is intolerable. And I sincerely hope the folks over at Sawstone don’t have a hand in it. 

But that is about the only point I could get behind in his blog post/open letter to the craft beer community. Greg Koch’s response from Stone’s founder has put a sour taste in my mouth. He came off in one breath oblivious and in another as that guy who is convinced everyone is his friend. 

Rather than quell my reservations about their business practices, his response led to more questions. How does an executive not have a clue about what their legal team is doing? I would think that would be important. I guess after looking at the list of trademark infringement cases, it would be hard to remember each individual name. 

Side note, Firestone Walker was absent from that list when I would have thought they would be a priority given their proximity to one another. But nary a mention. Hmm…

Koch’s claim that this type of litigation happening all the time is obviously valid. Trademarking has to be enforced. The assertion that everyone walks away buddies is undoubtedly not. If that has genuinely been his experience, he’s been very lucky or has been drinking in a lot of lip service. 

This sort of litigation could cripple places like Sawstone. He, better than anyone, should be painstakingly aware of the financial and emotional commitment to starting a business. To pursue this, now of all times, is incredibly tone-deaf.

Stone absolutely has a right, even a need, to protect its trademark. So, more power to Stone and Greg Koch, I suppose. But it’s during times like these that consumers really think about where they want to put their money because money is tight for everyone. I can’t help but see a company choosing words over the broader community. 

What good will a trademark be if you alienate your consumers?