Millercoors Brief Here

Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6013 Page 1 of 4

1 Christopher T. Casamassima (SBN #211280) 2 WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2100 3 Los Angeles, CA 90071 4 Tel: (213) 443-5300 [email protected] 5 Vinita Ferrera (pro hac vice; MA Bar #631190) 6 WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP 7 60 State Street Boston, MA 02109 8 Tel: (617) 526-6556 9 [email protected]

10 Additional counsel listed on signature page 11 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT 12 MILLERCOORS LLC

13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 16 17 STONE BREWING CO., LLC, Case No.: 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defen 18 NOTICE OF MOTION AND v. 19 DEFENDANT MILLERCOORS LLC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY MILLERCOORS LLC, 20 JUDGMENT Defendant/Counterclaim Plai 21 Date: September 16, 2019 22 Time: 10:30 a.m. 23 Location: Courtroom 5A Judge: Hon. Roger T. Benitez 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANT MILLER COORS LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6014 Page 2 of 4

1 TO ALL PARTIES AND COUNSEL OF RECORD 2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT, on September 16, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. in the 3 courtroom of the Honorable Roger T. Benitez, Defendant MillerCoors, LLC 4 (“MillerCoors”) Motion for Summary Judgment will be heard. 5 The Motion will be and hereby is made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 6 Procedure 56. MillerCoors is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law because 7 there is no genuine dispute of material fact as to the following: (1) MillerCoors is the 8 senior user of the “STONE” and “STONE” marks, and thus has the right to use those 9 marks and cannot be found to infringe Stone Brewing’s STONE mark; (2) Stone 10 Brewing’s claims are barred under the doctrine of laches; (3) MillerCoors’ alleged 11 infringement was not willful; and (4) Stone Brewing’s claims for dilution under federal 12 law and California law fail because the STONE trademark is not famous or, in the 13 alternative, because MillerCoors’ use started before the STONE mark became famous. 14 15 This Motion is based upon this Notice, the Memorandum of Law in Support of 16 MillerCoors’ Motion for Summary Judgment, the Declaration of Christopher T. 17 Casamassima, the Declaration of Heidi Harris, any exhibits attached thereto, and such 18 evidence and arguments that may be adduced at the hearing on this matter.

19 Respectfully submitted, 20 21 Dated: August 12, 2019 MILLERCOORS LLC 22 23 By: /s/Christopher T. Casamassima 24 Christopher T. Casamassima (SBN #211280) 25 WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & 26 DORR LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2100 27 Los Angeles, CA 90071 28 1 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL

Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6015 Page 3 of 4

1 Tel: (213) 443-5300 2 [email protected] 3 Vinita Ferrera (pro hac vice; MA Bar 4 #631190) 5 WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP 6 60 State Street 7 Boston, MA 02109 Tel: (617) 526-6556 8 [email protected] 9 Matthew J. Worthington (pro hac vice; 10 CO Bar #47987) 11 WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP 12 1225 17th Street, Suite 2600 13 Denver, CO 80202 Tel: (720) 598-3443 14 [email protected] 15 Brittany Blueitt Amadi (pro hac vice; 16 DC Bar # 1015271) WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & 17 DORR LLP 18 1875 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20006 19 Tel: (202) 663-6000 20 [email protected]

21 Attorneys for Defendant MillerCoors LLC 22

23 24 25 26 27

28 2 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL

Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6016 Page 4 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

28 3 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL

Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-1 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6017 Page 1 of 31

10 Additional counsel listed on signature page 11 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT 12 MILLERCOORS LLC

13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15

17 STONE BREWING CO., LLC, Case No.: 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, 18 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN v. 19 SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT MILLERCOORS LLC’S MOTION MILLERCOORS LLC, 20 FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff. 21 Date: September 16, 2019 22 Time: 10:30 a.m. 23 Location: Courtroom 5A Judge: Hon. Roger T. Benitez 24 25

28 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT MILLERCOORS LLC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-1 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6018 Page 2 of 31

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 3 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS ...... 2 4 A. 1989-1996: Coors Brewing Creates Keystone and Adopts the 5 Nickname “STONE” and “STONES” ...... 2 B. 1996-1998: Stone Brewing Is Formed and Selects the Name STONE 5 6 C. 1996-2009: MillerCoors Continues Its Use of “STONE” and 7 “STONES” to Sell Keystone Beer ...... 5 8 D. Stone Brewing Objects to MillerCoors’ Use of “STONE” and 9 “STONES” in 2010 ...... 6

10 E. 2010-2016: MillerCoors Continues to Use “STONE” and “STONES” to Advertise Keystone Beer ...... 7 11 F. 2016-2017: MillerCoors Refreshes Keystone’s Look ...... 8 12 G. 2018: Stone Brewing Files This Lawsuit ...... 12 13 III. Statement of Issues ...... 12 14 IV. Legal Standard ...... 12 15 V. Argument ...... 13

16 A. MillerCoors Has a Priority Right to use “STONE” and “STONES” to Sell Keystone Beer ...... 13 17 B. There is No Evidence to Support a Finding of Willfulness ...... 17 18 C. Stone Brewing’s Trademark Dilution Claims Fail ...... 20 19 D. Laches Bars Stone Brewing’s Claims ...... 24 20 VII. CONCLUSION ...... 25 21 22 23 24

Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-1 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6019 Page 3 of 31

1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

2 Page(s) 3 CASES 4 Am. Auto. Ass’n of N. California, Nevada & Utah v. Gen. Motors 5 LLC, 367 F. Supp. 3d 1072 (N.D. Cal. 2019)...... 18, 19

6 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) ...... 12 7 Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 2012 WL 2571719 (N.D. Cal. June 8 30, 2012) ...... 23

9 Avery Dennison Corp. v. Sumpton, 189 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 1999) ...... 21, 22, 24 10 Casual Corner Assocs., Inc. v. Casual Stores of Nevada, Inc., 493 11 F.2d 709 (9th Cir. 1974) ...... 13

12 Celotex Corp, v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) ...... 12 13 Chance v. Pac-Tel Teletrac Inc., 242 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2001) ...... 14, 15

14 Davis v. ESS Worldwide Corp., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152290 (S.D. 15 Cal. Jan. 5, 2010) ...... 17 16 Dropbox, Inc. v. Thru Inc., 728 Fed.App’x 717 (9th Cir. 2018) ...... 25

17 Evergreen Safety Council v. RSA Networks Inc., 697 F.3d 1221 (9th 18 Cir. 2012) ...... 25

19 Groupion, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 826 F.Supp.2d 1156 (N.D. Cal. 20 2011) ...... 18, 19 21 Hydramedia Corp. v. Novadaq Techs., Inc. v. Karl Storz GmbH & Co. K.G., 143 F. Supp. 3d 947 (N.D. Cal. 2015), on reconsideration 22 sub nom. Novadaq Techs., Inc. v. Karl Storz Gmbh & Co., 2015 23 WL 11110632 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2015) ...... 18

24 New West Corp. v. NYM Co. of California, 595 F.2d 1194 (9th Cir. 25 1979) ...... 14, 16 26 Nike, Inc. v. Nikepal Int’l, Inc., 2007 WL 2782030 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2007) ...... 22, 23 27

28 ii

Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-1 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6020 Page 4 of 31

1 Pinkette Clothing, Inc., v. Cosmetic Warriors Ltd., 894 F.3d 1015 (9th 2 Cir. 2018) ...... 24, 25

3 Pinterest, Inc. v. Pintrips, Inc., 140 F. Supp. 3d 997 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ...... 22, 23, 24 4 San Miguel Pure Foods Co. v. Ramar Int’l Corp., 625 F. App’x 322 5 (9th Cir. 2015) ...... 19

6 Scat Enterprises, Inc. v. FCA US LLC, 2017 WL 5896182 (C.D. Cal. June 8, 2017) ...... 19 7

8 Sengoku Works Ltd. v. RMC Int’l, Ltd., 96 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 1996) ...... 13

9 TCPIP Holding Co. v. Haar Commc’ns, Inc., 244 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2001) ...... 22 10

11 Thane Int’l, Inc. v. Trek Bicycle Corp., 305 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2002) ...... 21, 23

12 Visa Int’l Serv. Ass’n v. JSL Corp., 590 F. Supp. 2d 1306 (D. Nev. 2008), aff’d, 610 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2010) ...... 23 13

14 Yelp Inc. v. Catron, 70 F.Supp.3d 1082 (N.D.Cal. 2014) ...... 23

15 STATUTES, RULES, AND REGULATIONS 16 15 U.S.C. 1225(c)(2)(A) ...... 21

17 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(1) ...... 21 18 Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 14247 ...... 21 19 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)...... 12 20

28 iii

Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-1 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6021 Page 5 of 31 Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-1 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6022 Page 6 of 31 Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-1 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6023 Page 7 of 31 Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-1 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6024 Page 8 of 31 Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-1 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6025 Page 9 of 31 Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-1 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6026 Page 10 of 31 Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-1 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6027 Page 11 of 31

1 not make any changes in its promotion of Keystone Light beer.”15 The parties 2 exchanged additional correspondence on this issue. On July 9, 2010, for example, 3 MillerCoors’ counsel reiterated that “MillerCoors LLC believes that it has prior use of 4 ‘STONES’” and that “we cannot advise MillerCoors to discontinue its current use of 5 ‘STONES’.”16 Ultimately, in November 2010, MillerCoors chose not to pursue a 6 trademark application for the “Hold My Stones” ad campaign it was running at the time, 7 but it made clear that it would continue marketing Keystone as it had been doing, using 8 the “STONE” and “STONES” marks.17 Stone Brewing took no steps to prevent 9 MillerCoors from using “STONE” or “STONES” in subsequent Keystone campaigns. 10 In fact, despite MillerCoors’ continued use of “STONE” and “STONES” to sell 11 Keystone, MillerCoors never heard another word from Stone Brewing until Stone 12 Brewing filed this lawsuit – more than seven years later. 13 E. 2010-2016: MillerCoors Continues to Use “STONE” and “STONES” to 14 Advertise Keystone Beer 15 In 2010, MillerCoors launched the massively popular “Keith Stone” campaign for 16 Keystone.18 From 2010 through 2015, Keith Stone starred in TV commercials and on 17 print advertisements, billboards, and social media, flanked by his signature catchphrase 18 “HOLD MY STONES.”19 MillerCoors further rolled out the ‘STONE HANDED 19 GAMES promotion in 2013, which encouraged Keystone consumers to reimagine 20 Keystone packages as their favorite backyard or tailgate games.20

21 15 22 Casamassima Decl. Ex. 30, MILLERCOORS0001686, Casamassima Decl. Ex. 31, MILLERCOORS0001726. 23 16 Casamassima Decl. Ex. 31, MILLERCOORS0001726. 17 Casamassima Decl. Ex. 32, MILLERCOORS0001681; Casamassima Decl. Ex 31, 24 MILLERCOORS0001726. 25 18 Casamassima Decl. Ex. 33, MILLERCOORS0153273. 19 Casamassima Decl. Ex. 34, MILLERCOORS0151125 (Ex. 34 is national television 26 commercial released in connection with the Keith Stone advertising campaign. 27 MillerCoors will deliver a hard-copy version of this file to the court.). 20 Casamassima Decl. Ex. 35, MILLERCOORS0000193; Casamassima Decl. Ex. 36, 28 MILLERCOORS0000221; Casamassima Decl. Ex. 37, MILLERCOORS0000231. 7 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL

Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-1 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6028 Page 12 of 31 Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-1 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6029 Page 13 of 31 Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-1 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6030 Page 14 of 31 Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-1 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6031 Page 15 of 31 Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-1 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6032 Page 16 of 31 Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-1 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6033 Page 17 of 31

1 judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact.” 477 U.S. 2 242, 247-48 (1986). 3 V. Argument 4 It is undisputed that, since at least 1991, MillerCoors (and its predecessor, Coors) 5 has used “STONE” and “STONES”: in connection with its marketing and sale of 6 Keystone beer. Since at least 1995, and for every year thereafter, MillerCoors has sold 7 30-packs of “STONES” in every state and has advertised using “STONE” and 8 “STONES” nationally across a variety of mediums. This long and well-documented 9 history of prior use establishes MillerCoors as the senior user of the “STONE” and 10 “STONES” marks to advertise and sell Keystone beer. Even apart from MillerCoors’ 11 priority of use argument, MillerCoors is entitled to summary judgment on the issue of 12 willfulness as Plaintiff has failed to point to any evidence of willfulness. MillerCoors is 13 further entitled to summary judgment with respect to Stone Brewing’s claims of dilution 14 under federal and state law because Stone Brewing cannot establish that its mark is 15 famous or, alternatively, that it became famous before MillerCoors began using 16 “STONE” and “STONES.” Finally, MillerCoors is entitled to summary judgment that 17 Stone Brewing’s claims are barred by laches. 18 A. MillerCoors Has a Priority Right to use “STONE” and “STONES” to 19 Sell Keystone Beer

20 “It is axiomatic in trademark law that the standard test of ownership is priority of

21 use.” Sengoku Works Ltd. v. RMC Int'l, Ltd., 96 F.3d 1217, 1219 (9th Cir. 1996).

22 Registering the mark first is not enough. Id. “[T]he party claiming ownership must have

23 been the first to actually use the mark in the sale of goods or services.” Id. As this Court

24 has previously instructed, “to establish a senior common-law right in a mark registered

25 by a junior user, a party must show that (1) its use of the mark began before the mark’s

26 registration and publication; and (2) there has been continuing use since that time.”

27 (Order Denying Mot. For Prelim. Injunction, ECF 85, at p. 18) (citing Casual Corner

28 13 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL

Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-1 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6034 Page 18 of 31

1 Assocs., Inc. v. Casual Stores of Nevada, Inc., 493 F.2d 709, 712 (9th Cir. 1974). 2 1. There is No Genuine Dispute that MillerCoors Used “STONE” 3 and “STONES” Prior to Stone Brewing’s Registration and Publication 4 In evaluating a claim of priority use, courts should consider the “totality of the 5 circumstances” to determine whether a party was the first to use the mark in commerce. 6 Chance v. Pac-Tel Teletrac Inc., 242 F.3d 1151, 1158 (9th Cir. 2001). Stone Brewing 7 filed an application to register the mark “STONE” with the PTO in 1996; the application 8 was published in 1997; and the mark was registered in 1998.40 Yet, MillerCoors has 9 provided overwhelming, incontrovertible evidence that it used “STONE” and 10 “STONES” to advertise Keystone beer starting in at least 1991, five years before Stone 11 Brewing filed its trademark application, and that it began placing “STONES” on the 12 packaging for its 30-packs beginning in at least 1995, a year before Stone Brewing’s 13 trademark application was filed.41 This documentary evidence is clear and indisputable 14 proof that MillerCoors used the mark in commerce before Stone Brewing. 15 A party can establish priority of use so long as it used the mark in a “sufficiently 16 public” manner such that consumers would associate the mark with that party’s product. 17 See New West Corp. v. NYM Co. of California, 595 F.2d 1194, 1200 (9th Cir. 1979). 18 MillerCoors’ use of the marks has undoubtedly been “sufficiently public” such that 19 consumers would associate them with Keystone beer prior to Stone Brewing’s adoption 20 of the name. As this court already noted, MillerCoors has produced photographs of 21 Keystone Light outer packaging that clearly show a copyright date of 1995. (Order, ECF 22 85, p. 18). This image indisputably uses the term “STONES” alongside “Keystone 23 Light.” This is true for each and every 30-pack sold since 1995.42 Through discovery, 24 MillerCoors has produced dozens of additional examples of packaging43 and 25

26 40 Casamassima Decl. Ex 70, MCEXPERT000442. 41 27 See, e.g., Casamassima Decl. Ex. 11, MILLERCOORS0127635. 42 Casamassima Decl. Ex. 54, Harris Tr. 167:8-14. 28 43 Keystone packaging is attached hereto as Harris Decl. Ex. 1. 14 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL

Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-1 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6035 Page 19 of 31

1 advertising44 using “STONE” and “STONES” predating Stone Brewing’s registration.45 2 Keystone’s advertising materials sufficiently associate “STONE” and “STONES” with 3 Keystone Light, as each item that uses those terms clearly also references Keystone 4 Light. Many of these items can be dated by their stamped copyright date, while others 5 have been dated and verified by the Coors Archivist.46 6 The Ninth Circuit has specifically instructed that use in commerce need not be 7 extensive but need merely show a “bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce.” 8 Pac-Tel Teletrac Inc., 242 F.3d at 1157. MillerCoors’ use of “STONE” and “STONES” 9 prior to 1996 undoubtedly meets, and even exceeds, this requirement. MillerCoors 10 consistently used “STONES” on every 30-pack going back to 1995.47 MillerCoors has 11 produced sales data showing that Keystone Light was sold nationwide by no later than 12 1991.48 Further, as is evidenced by Section II, supra, MillerCoors placed its “THE 13 ‘STONE” logo on hats, frisbees, coolers, and other similar promotional merchandise, 14 which were then advertised through Coors Merchandise catalogues that were distributed 15 nationwide.49 Similarly, MillerCoors has produced brochures from this time period from 16

17 44 Representative samples of Keystone advertisements and marketing materials are filed 18 herewith as Harris Decl. Ex. 2. 45 MillerCoors does not contend that the items produced thus far represent the full 19 universe of its use of “STONE” and “STONES” to sell Keystone beer during this time 20 period. Indeed, MillerCoors has reason to believe that a myriad other Keystone advertisements and packages may have, and likely did, use “STONE” and “STONES” 21 during this time period. Due to the nearly 30-year gap in time, however, it is highly 22 probable that many of the relevant materials have been lost due to the passage of time. 46 See Casamassima Decl. Ex. 55, Expert Disclosure of Heidi Harris; see also 23 Casamassima Decl. Ex. 54 Harris Tr. 28:1-5, 40:25-41:20. 47 Id. 24 48 Casamassima Decl. Ex. 3, MILLERCOORS0150743; Casamassima Decl. Ex. 56, 25 Expert Report of Mark Hosfield, Appendix D, Schedule 1; see also Harris Decl. Ex. 1, 49 Casamassima Decl. Ex. 13, MILLERCOORS0127608; Casamassima Decl. Ex. 14, 26 MILLERCOORS0127615; Casamassima Decl. Ex. 15, MILLERCOORS0127614; 27 Casamassima Decl. Ex. 16, MILLERCOORS0127621; Casamassima Decl. Ex. 17, MILLERCOORS0127607; Casamassima Decl. Ex. 18, MILLERCOORS0127616; see 28 also Harris Decl. at ¶ 4. 15 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL

Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-1 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6036 Page 20 of 31 Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-1 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6037 Page 21 of 31

1 “STONES” continuously since at least 1991. As detailed at length in Section II, supra, 2 and in this section, MillerCoors has provided Plaintiff and this Court with indisputable 3 evidence of such continuous use. MillerCoors has produced Keystone marketing 4 materials and packaging evidencing the use of “STONE” and “STONES” every year 5 from 1991 to the present. It has also produced sales data showing that Keystone Light 6 was distributed and sold continuously nationwide for that entire period.53 Where, as 7 here, a party’s continuous use occurs through nationwide distribution, there is “sufficient 8 market penetration” for the party to be deemed the senior user. Davis v. ESS Worldwide 9 Corp., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152290, at *14 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2010). 10 3. There is No Dispute as to any Material Fact, and MillerCoors is Entitled to Summary Judgment on This Issue as a Matter of 11 Law 12 The undisputed evidence submitted by MillerCoors proves that it began using 13 “STONE” and “STONES” to advertise and sell Keystone beer prior to Stone Brewing’s 14 filing of its application to register STONE as a mark. The undisputed evidence further 15 proves that MillerCoors has used the “STONE” and “STONES” marks continuously and 16 in commerce since at least 1991, five years prior even to Stone Brewing’s founding. No 17 reasonable jury could return a verdict for Stone Brewing on this issue. MillerCoors is 18 therefore entitled to summary judgment that it is the senior user of “STONE” and 19 “STONES” in connection with Keystone beer in the United States, and thus has the 20 common law right to use those marks and cannot be deemed to infringe Stone Brewing’s 21 later-registered STONE mark. 22 B. There is No Evidence to Support a Finding of Willfulness 23 Even apart from its status as the senior user of the “STONE” and “STONES” 24 marks, MillerCoors is entitled to summary judgment that its conduct was not willful. 25

26 53 27 Casamassima Decl. Ex. 3, MILLERCOORS0150743; Casamassima Decl. Ex. 56, Expert Report of Mark Hosfield, Appendix D, Schedule 1; see also Casamassima Decl. 28 Ex. 1, MILLERCOORS0153254; Casamassima Decl. Ex. 2, MILLERCOORS0153261. 17 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL

Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-1 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6038 Page 22 of 31

1 Despite extensive discovery, Stone Brewing is unable to point to a shred of evidence that 2 MillerCoors acted willfully in allegedly infringing Stone Brewing’s trademark. 3 Courts in the Ninth Circuit routinely grant summary judgment on the issue of 4 willfulness. See, e.g., Hydra Media Grp. Inc., 392 F. App'x 522, 523 (9th Cir. 2010) 5 (affirming district court’s grant of summary judgment on willfulness where “Defendant 6 initially adopted the contested mark [] before it knew that Plaintiff even existed” and 7 where “there was no evidence that it sought to mislead consumers or usurp any goodwill 8 associated with Plaintiff’s mark.”); Am. Auto. Ass'n of N. California, Nevada & Utah v. 9 Gen. Motors LLC, 367 F. Supp. 3d 1072, 1104 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (granting summary 10 judgment of no willfulness where plaintiff could not identify any evidence that 11 defendant acted willfully); Hydramedia Corp. v. Novadaq Techs., Inc. v. Karl Storz 12 GmbH & Co. K.G., 143 F. Supp. 3d 947, 957 (N.D. Cal. 2015), on reconsideration sub 13 nom. Novadaq Techs., Inc. v. Karl Storz Gmbh & Co., 2015 WL 11110632 (N.D. Cal. 14 Dec. 11, 2015) (granting summary judgment of no willfulness where there was no 15 evidence that defendant deliberately intended to deceive customers, noting that, 16 “knowledge of another’s goods is not the same as an intent to mislead and to cause 17 customer confusion.”); Groupion, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 826 F.Supp.2d 1156, 1165 18 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (granting defendant's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's 19 request for defendant's profits because plaintiff could not prove willful infringement). 20 1. Plaintiff Cannot Identify Any Evidence of Bad Intent 21 “On an issue as to which the nonmoving party will have the burden of proof” at 22 trial, a party seeking summary judgment “can prevail merely by pointing out that there is 23 an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.” Soremekun v. Thrifty 24 payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 978, 984 (9th Cir. 2007). As this Court has already 25 acknowledged, “Stone’s only ‘evidence’ of bad intent boils down to two points:” (1) that 26 MillerCoors was aware of Stone Brewing prior to 2017 and (2) that MillerCoors did not 27 successfully register STONES and HOLD MY STONES with the PTO. (Order Denying 28 18 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL

Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-1 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6039 Page 23 of 31

1 Pl.’s Motion for Prelim. Inj., ECF 85, pp. 12-13). This Court has already considered 2 each of these points and expressly found that “neither is evidence of bad intent.” Id. 3 (emphasis added). After more than 12 months of fact and expert discovery, the 4 production of 45,608 documents, and 13 depositions of MillerCoors’ witnesses (plus 3 5 depositions of third-party marketing agencies), Stone Brewing has failed to identify any 6 evidence beyond that which the Court previously considered and found not to constitute 7 evidence of bad intent. To the contrary, the documents confirm that the MillerCoors 8 brand team never once mentioned Stone Brewing during their development of the 9 Keystone refresh, and the testimony of the witnesses corroborates this.54 10 Because Plaintiff’s proffered “evidence” does not support a finding of bad intent, 11 it necessarily cannot evidence willfulness, which requires a heightened showing that the 12 defendant deliberately intended to deceive the public. See San Miguel Pure Foods Co. v. 13 Ramar Int'l Corp., 625 F. App'x 322, 324-24 (9th Cir. 2015) (finding that “[w]illful 14 infringement carries a connotation of deliberate intent to deceive.”); Am. Auto. Ass'n of 15 N. California, Nevada & Utah, 367 F. Supp. 3d at 1102 (“Courts generally apply 16 forceful labels such as ‘deliberate,’ ‘false,’ ‘misleading,’ or ‘fraudulent’ to conduct that 17 meets this standard”). Courts in this Circuit have explicitly stated that “mere knowledge 18 is insufficient to show willfulness,” Am. Auto. Ass'n of N. California, Nevada & Utah v. 19 Gen. Motors LLC, 367 F. Supp. 3d at 1104, and have further found that a Defendant’s 20 decision to continue using a mark after the USPTO refused registration “does not 21 evidence a willfulness to exploit Plaintiff’s mark.” Scat Enterprises, Inc. v. FCA US 22 LLC, No. CV 14-7995-R, 2017 WL 5896182, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 8, 2017); cf 23 Groupion, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 826 F.Supp.2d 1156, 1165 (N.D. Cal. 2011)(“[T]he 24 failure to stop using a mark after receiving a cease and desist letter does not show willful 25 infringement and is not necessarily indicative of bad faith.”)

26 54 27 See, e.g., Casamassima Decl. Ex. 42, Selman Tr. 69:11-19; Casamassima Decl. Ex. 63, Marek Tr. 392:7-10; Casamassima Decl. Ex. 64, Hemmer Tr. 211:1-5; Casamassima 28 Decl. Ex. 8, Needleman Tr. 323:7-11. 19 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL

Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-1 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6040 Page 24 of 31 Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-1 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6041 Page 25 of 31

1 law. Under both claims, Stone Brewing must prove that (1) its STONE mark is famous 2 and distinctive; (2) MillerCoors is making use of the mark in commerce; (3) 3 MillerCoors’ use began after the mark became famous; and (4) MillerCoors’ use of the 4 mark is likely to cause dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment. 15 U.S.C. § 5 1125(c)(1); Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 14247. Stone Brewing lacks evidence to create a 6 genuine issue of material fact as to whether (a) its STONE trademark is famous or (b) 7 MillerCoors’ use started after the STONE mark became famous. Therefore, the Court 8 should grant summary judgment against Stone Brewing’s trademark dilution claims. 9 1. Stone Brewing has produced no evidence that the STONE trademark is famous. 10

11 Stone Brewing cannot prove that its trademark STONE is a “household name.”

12 See Thane Int'l, Inc. v. Trek Bicycle Corp., 305 F.3d 894, 911 (9th Cir. 2002).

13 Trademark dilution, under both federal and California law, requires a plaintiff to prove

14 its trademark is “famous.” Id. “Famous” trademarks are only those that are truly a

15 “household name” that have “achieved fame throughout the population at large” and

16 “have become a part of the collective national consciousness.” Thane Int’l, 305 F.3d at

17 911–12; see also Avery Dennison Corp. v. Sumpton, 189 F.3d 868, 873 (9th Cir. 1999)

18 (“Dilution is a cause of action invented and reserved for a select class of marks--those

19 marks with such powerful consumer associations that even non-competing users can

20 impinge on their value.”).

21 Stone Brewing has produced no evidence from which a reasonable fact-finder

22 could find that the trademark STONE is famous throughout the population at large. To

23 determine whether a mark is famous, courts consider a non-exhaustive list of factors,

24 including the duration and extent of advertising, the amount and extent of sales, and the

25 actual recognition of the mark. See 15 U.S.C. 1225(c)(2)(A). Stone Brewing cannot

26 carry any of these factors.

28 21 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-1 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6042 Page 26 of 31 Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-1 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6043 Page 27 of 31 Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-1 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6044 Page 28 of 31

1 Brewing lacks evidence to demonstrate that either the general population or the 2 population of California strongly associates the mark STONE with Stone Brewing’s 3 products so that any commercial use of the word STONE, even non-competing uses, 4 dilutes the STONE mark. Because undisputed evidence is insufficient to support a 5 finding that the STONE mark is famous, the Court should grant summary judgment 6 against Stone Brewing’s federal and state dilution claims. 7 Even if Stone Brewing could show that its mark is famous, which it cannot, its 8 dilution claims must fail because the mark was not famous at the time that MillerCoors 9 first used “STONE” and “STONES” to sell Keystone beer. In order to support a claim 10 for dilution, a plaintiff must prove that “the defendant’s use [of the mark] began after the 11 plaintiff’s mark became famous.” Avery, 189 F.3d at 873–74. The first use for purposes 12 of dilution is measured by defendant’s first commercial use of the mark, regardless of 13 whether the plaintiff alleges the use was not “confusing or combined with other 14 identifiers.” Id. at 1007. MillerCoors has already provided ample evidence of its use of 15 “STONE” and “STONES” to sell Keystone since at least 1991. As MillerCoors explains, 16 supra, since at least 1995, every 30 pack of Keystone Light sold has prominently 17 featured the “STONES” reference. Thus, in order to prevail on its dilution claim, Stone 18 Brewing must prove that its mark was famous by the early to mid-1990s. See Pinterest, 19 140 F. Supp. 3d at 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (finding that “[Defendant] first used its marks 20 by no later than October of 2011. In order to prevail on its dilution claim, [Plaintiff] 21 must demonstrate that its marks were famous by that date.”) Stone Brewing was not 22 even formed until 1996, and did not claim to begin using the STONE mark until 1998. 23 Accordingly, it is impossible for Stone Brewing to make the necessary showing, 24 entitling MillerCoors to summary judgment on this issue. 25 VI. Laches Bars Stone Brewing’s Claims 26 Courts apply a “strong presumption” that laches bars a party’s claims when they 27 are filed after the expiration of the analogous limitations period. See, e.g., Pinkette 28 24 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL

Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-1 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6045 Page 29 of 31

1 Clothing, Inc., v. Cosmetic Warriors Ltd., 894 F.3d 1015, 1025 (9th Cir. 2018). It is 2 undisputed that Stone Brewing was aware of MillerCoors’ use of “STONE” and 3 “STONES” as early as April 2010.69 Stone Brewing then waited nearly eight years, until 4 February 2018, to file this lawsuit against MillerCoors for use of these terms. Stone 5 Brewing’s claims were filed four years after the analogous limitations period had 6 expired, and there is a strong presumption they are barred by laches. See id. at 1025 7 (analogizing California’s four-year statute of limitations for trademark infringement). 8 Stone Brewing can provide no excuse for this delay, and MillerCoors will suffer clear 9 prejudice from the delay. After 2010, there is no dispute that MillerCoors continued to 10 build a valuable Keystone brand using “STONE” and “STONES,”70 and Stone 11 Brewing’s delay has caused evidence to fade that MillerCoors would have used to 12 defend against these claims.71 See Dropbox, Inc. v. Thru Inc., 728 Fed.App’x 717, 719 13 (9th Cir. 2018) (recognizing expectation prejudice); Evergreen Safety Council v. RSA 14 Networks Inc., 697 F.3d 1221, 1227 (9th Cir. 2012) (recognizing evidentiary prejudice). 15 The Court should grant summary judgment based on laches. 16 VII. CONCLUSION 17 MillerCoors respectfully requests that the Court grant its request for summary 18 judgment that: (1) MillerCoors is the senior user of the “STONE” and “STONES” 19 marks, and thus has the right to use “STONE” and “STONES” and cannot be found to 20 infringe Stone Brewing’s mark (MillerCoors’ First and Third Counterclaims and Second 21 Affirmative Defense); (2) MillerCoors’ alleged infringement was not willful; (3) Stone 22 Brewing’s claims for dilution under federal and state law fail because the STONE 23 trademark is not famous or, in the alternative, because MillerCoors’ use started before 24 the STONE mark became famous; and (4) Stone Brewing’s claims are barred by laches. 25

26 69 Casamassima Decl. Ex. 29, MILLERCOORS0001729. 27 70 See supra, II.E–F. 71 Casamassima Decl. Ex. 54, Harris Tr. 112:5–113:11; Casamassima Decl. Ex. 71, 28 Wexelbaum Tr. 113:1-115:2. 25 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL

Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-1 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6046 Page 30 of 31

1 2 Respectfully submitted, 3 4 Dated: August 12, 2019 MILLERCOORS LLC 5 6 By: /s/Christopher T. Casamassima Christopher T. Casamassima (SBN 7 #211280) 8 WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP 9 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2100 10 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel: (213) 443-5300 11 [email protected] 12

13 Vinita Ferrera (pro hac vice; MA Bar 14 #631190) WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & 15 DORR LLP 16 60 State Street Boston, MA 02109 17 Tel: (617) 526-6556 18 [email protected] 19 Matthew J. Worthington (pro hac vice; CO Bar #47987) 20 WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & 21 DORR LLP 1225 17th Street, Suite 2600 22 Denver, CO 80202 23 Tel: (720) 598-3443 [email protected] 24

25 Brittany Blueitt Amadi (pro hac vice; DC Bar # 1015271) 26 WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & 27 DORR LLP 1875 Pennsylvania Ave. NW 28 26 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL

Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-1 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6047 Page 31 of 31

1 Washington, DC 20006 2 Tel: (202) 663-6000 [email protected] 3 Attorneys for Defendant MillerCoors LLC 4 5 6

28 27 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL

Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-2 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6048 Page 1 of 4

10 Additional counsel listed on signature page 11 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT 12 MILLERCOORS LLC

13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 16 17 STONE BREWING CO., LLC, Case No.: 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, 18 DECLARATION OF HEIDI v. 19 HARRIS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR MILLERCOORS LLC, 20 SUMMARY JUDGMENT Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff. 21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF HEIDI HARRIS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT MILLER COORS LLC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-2 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6049 Page 2 of 4

1 I, Heidi Harris declare under penalty of perjury as follows: 2 1. I am currently employed as an Archivist at MillerCoors in Golden, 3 Colorado. 4 2. During my employment at MillerCoors, I have reviewed extensive materials 5 relating to the history of MillerCoors and the brands and products that the 6 company has sold over the years. This includes extensive work at the 7 MillerCoors Archive in Golden (Golden Archives). 8 3. As a result of my work at the Golden Archives, I have become familiar with 9 the packaging, promotional materials, and other information maintained in 10 the archive relating to the Keystone brand. In particular, I have inspected 11 Keystone primary and secondary packaging, packaging artwork, point-of- 12 sale materials, advertisements, audiovisual materials, and other documents 13 and items relating to the Keystone brand dating back to the origins of the 14 brand. 15 4. As early as 1991, STONE and STONES (both with and without an 16 apostrophe) appeared on packaging, promotions, point-of-sale, advertising, 17 and/or other materials related to the Keystone brand that were put into 18 United States commerce in all 50 states. This conclusion is based on my 19 understanding of the historical practice of the Keystone brand, and is further 20 based on my review of photo negatives of merchandising images that would 21 have appeared in Coors’ merchandise catalogues, which offered such 22 merchandise for sale nationwide. True and correct examples of such 23 materials are shown in Exhibit 2, attached hereto. 24 5. MillerCoors and its predecessors have consistently used STONES (both with 25 and without an apostrophe) on secondary packaging put into United States 26 commerce in all 50 states from the present day dating back to at least as 27 28 1

Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-2 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6050 Page 3 of 4

1 early as 1995. Specifically, I have examined Keystone Light 30-pack 2 secondary packages from every year from 1995-present, with the exception 3 of the years 1999-2000 and 2015-2016.1 Every one of the 30-pack secondary 4 packages that I have has borne the word STONES in reference to the number 5 of cans in the package. True and correct examples of such packaging are 6 shown in Exhibit 1, attached hereto. 7 6. The dates attributed to the packaging and advertising referenced in Exhibits 8 1-2 are accurate based on the best available methods for dating such objects. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 1 24 Based on my conversations with MillerCoors employees and my knowledge of the historical practices of the company and the Keystone brand, it is my 25 understanding that the 1999 30-pack packaging was used through the 1999-2000 26 period, and thus there was no new packaging in those two years. Likewise, it is my understanding that the 2014 30-pack packaging continued to be used in 2015 27 through April 2017. 28 2

Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-2 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6051 Page 4 of 4

3 Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-3 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6052 Page 1 of 13

Exhibit 1 Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-3 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6053 Page 2 of 13 Stone Brewing Co., LLC v. MillerCoors, LLC 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-JMA Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Heidi Harris

1995

MILLERCOORS0127341 MILLERCOORS0127338 1996

Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-3 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6054 Page 3 of 13 Stone Brewing Co., LLC v. MillerCoors, LLC 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-JMA Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Heidi Harris MILLERCOORS0000243 MILLERCOORS0000240

1997

MILLERCOORS0127416 MILLERCOORS0127414

1998

MILLERCOORS0127349

Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-3 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6055 Page 4 of 13 Stone Brewing Co., LLC v. MillerCoors, LLC 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-JMA Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Heidi Harris MILLERCOORS0127353

1999-20001

MILLERCOORS0127362 MILLERCOORS0127358 2001

1 See Harris Decl., ¶ 6

Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-3 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6056 Page 5 of 13 Stone Brewing Co., LLC v. MillerCoors, LLC 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-JMA Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Heidi Harris

MILLERCOORS0127422 MILLERCOORS0127422

2002

Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-3 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6057 Page 6 of 13 Stone Brewing Co., LLC v. MillerCoors, LLC 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-JMA Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Heidi Harris

MILLERCOORS0127429

MILLERCOORS0127427 2003

MILLERCOORS0127371 MILLERCOORS0127371

Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-3 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6058 Page 7 of 13 Stone Brewing Co., LLC v. MillerCoors, LLC 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-JMA Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Heidi Harris 2004

MILLERCOORS0000158 MILLERCOORS0000184 2005

Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-3 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6059 Page 8 of 13 Stone Brewing Co., LLC v. MillerCoors, LLC 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-JMA Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Heidi Harris MILLERCOORS0000223 MILLERCOORS0000229 2006

MILLERCOORS0127347 MILLERCOORS0127347 2007

Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-3 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6060 Page 9 of 13 Stone Brewing Co., LLC v. MillerCoors, LLC 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-JMA Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Heidi Harris MILLERCOORS0127394 MILLERCOORS0127392 2008

MILLERCOORS0000176 MILLERCOORS0000183

2009-2010

MILLERCOORS0109385

Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-3 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6061 Page 10 of 13 Stone Brewing Co., LLC v. MillerCoors, LLC 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-JMA Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Heidi Harris MILLERCOORS0109385

20102

MILLERCOORS0109386 2011

2 While the packaging was not changed from 2009 to 2010, see Harris Decl. ¶ 6, MillerCoors did introduce a new 30-pack divider, included in each package to separate the top and bottom rows of cans. The below is an example of such divider in 2010.

Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-3 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6062 Page 11 of 13 Stone Brewing Co., LLC v. MillerCoors, LLC 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-JMA Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Heidi Harris

MILLERCOORS0109395

2012

MILLERCOORS0109429 MILLERCOORS0109429

Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-3 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6063 Page 12 of 13 Stone Brewing Co., LLC v. MillerCoors, LLC 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-JMA Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Heidi Harris 2013

MILLERCOORS0109452 MILLERCOORS0109452 2014

Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-3 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6064 Page 13 of 13 Stone Brewing Co., LLC v. MillerCoors, LLC 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-JMA Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Heidi Harris MILLERCOORS0109706 MILLERCOORS0109706 2015- April 2017

MILLERCOORS0107307

Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-4 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6065 Page 1 of 19

Exhibit 2 Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-4 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6066 Page 2 of 19 Stone Brewing Co., LLC v. MillerCoors, LLC 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-JMA Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Heidi Harris

1991

MILLERCOORS01276

1992

MILLERCOORS0090450

Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-4 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6067 Page 3 of 19 Stone Brewing Co., LLC v. MillerCoors, LLC 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-JMA Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Heidi Harris

1992-1996

MILLERCOORS0065323

1992-1996

MILLERCOORS0065325

Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-4 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6068 Page 4 of 19 Stone Brewing Co., LLC v. MillerCoors, LLC 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-JMA Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Heidi Harris

1993

MILLERCOORS0044328

1993

MILLERCOORS0127620

Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-4 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6069 Page 5 of 19 Stone Brewing Co., LLC v. MillerCoors, LLC 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-JMA Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Heidi Harris

1993

MILLERCOORS0127438

1993

MILLERCOORS0127442 4

Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-4 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6070 Page 6 of 19 Stone Brewing Co., LLC v. MillerCoors, LLC 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-JMA Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Heidi Harris

1993

MILLERCOORS0044331 1993

MILLERCOORS0044328

Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-4 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6071 Page 7 of 19 Stone Brewing Co., LLC v. MillerCoors, LLC 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-JMA Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Heidi Harris

1994

MILLERCOORS0127602

1994-1996

MILLERCOORS0065326

Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-4 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6072 Page 8 of 19 Stone Brewing Co., LLC v. MillerCoors, LLC 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-JMA Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Heidi Harris

1994-1996

MILLERCOORS0127616 1994-1996

MILLERCOORS0127613

Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-4 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6073 Page 9 of 19 Stone Brewing Co., LLC v. MillerCoors, LLC 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-JMA Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Heidi Harris

1994-1996

MILLERCOORS0127606 1994-1996

MILLERCOORS0127614

Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-4 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6074 Page 10 of 19 Stone Brewing Co., LLC v. MillerCoors, LLC 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-JMA Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Heidi Harris

1994-1996

MILLERCOORS0127615 1994-1996

MILLERCOORS0127608

Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-4 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6075 Page 11 of 19 Stone Brewing Co., LLC v. MillerCoors, LLC 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-JMA Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Heidi Harris

1994-1996

MILLERCOORS0127617 1996

MILLERCOORS0000141

Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-4 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6076 Page 12 of 19 Stone Brewing Co., LLC v. MillerCoors, LLC 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-JMA Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Heidi Harris

2000

MILLERCOORS0127628

2000

MILLERCOORS0127631

Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-4 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6077 Page 13 of 19 Stone Brewing Co., LLC v. MillerCoors, LLC 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-JMA Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Heidi Harris

2010

MILLERCOORS0000178

2011

MILLERCOORS0127639

Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-4 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6078 Page 14 of 19 Stone Brewing Co., LLC v. MillerCoors, LLC 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-JMA Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Heidi Harris

2011-2014

MILLERCOORS0000212

2013

MILLERCOORS0052933

Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-4 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6079 Page 15 of 19 Stone Brewing Co., LLC v. MillerCoors, LLC 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-JMA Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Heidi Harris

2013

MILLERCOORS0000124

2013

MILLERCOORS0000163

Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-4 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6080 Page 16 of 19 Stone Brewing Co., LLC v. MillerCoors, LLC 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-JMA Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Heidi Harris

2013

MILLERCOORS0000180

2014-2015

MILLERCOORS0151148

Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-4 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6081 Page 17 of 19 Stone Brewing Co., LLC v. MillerCoors, LLC 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-JMA Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Heidi Harris

2015

MILLERCOORS0109779 2015

MILLERCOORS0110223 16

Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-4 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6082 Page 18 of 19 Stone Brewing Co., LLC v. MillerCoors, LLC 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-JMA Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Heidi Harris

2015

MILLERCOORS0110098 2016

MILLERCOORS0110416

Case 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-LL Document 170-4 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.6083 Page 19 of 19 Stone Brewing Co., LLC v. MillerCoors, LLC 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-JMA Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Heidi Harris

2016

MILLERCOORS0111776 2016

MILLERCOORS0113288