Millercoors Brief Here
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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 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 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 26 27 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 25 26 27 28 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,