Flower
Bevlog

Archive for the ‘flavored malt beverage’ Category

LSD Causes Unchill in DC

lsd

The Washington Times and CityPages claim that TTB recently rebuffed a Minnesota brewer, in its efforts to hint about LSD on a beer label.

In doing so, the CityPages article took a few tough shots at TTB, calling them a “bunch of unchill tightwads,” “notoriously persnickety,” and describing the anatomy of people who work there, in an even less flattering way.

But if the label at issue looks anything like the above, why should a government agency give it a thumbs up? What’s the point of a review process, if it’s so porous that an LSD label would go through? By contrast, this one looks to be the version that did go through, and I really don’t think it’s so bad, or such a gross imposition on free speech. This seems like a good balance; the approved version certainly gets the point across, in a slightly more subtle way.

Even the brewer seems to acknowledge the above name might go too far, saying “With the name, I think we were pushing the envelope, too. Unfortunately, the envelope broke.”

Tags:

, ,

Posted in:

flavored malt beverage


Email This Post Email This Post     |    Print This Post Print This Post     |    


Beer with a little bit of Clover and FDA

clover

Here is a fun little article that combines a few of my favorite things:  beer, law, The Washington Post and four-leaf clovers.

The article tends to say that Flying Dog had to skirmish with FDA a wee bit, before getting the go ahead to put the clovers in the beer. From the article, I can’t tell if the issue was clovers in general, or only the lucky ones.

The article also hints at other quirks in the law. It says Flying Dog submitted the beer to FDA for approval, but this seems unlikely. I can see this Maryland brewer submitting a formula to TTB for approval, but not to FDA. Also, I would have expected to see a TTB approval for the label, but I can’t find one, and this must signal that Flying Dog only plans to sell this beer intrastate, in the near term. Mostly, this beer probably signals a good excuse for a St. Patrick’s Day-timed press release.

Even though clover seems pretty common, not so new, and generally recognized as safe (whether in 21 CFR 182.10 or via common sense), this article does serve as a good reminder that brewers can’t just use any article that is lying around the field or the grocery store. Some things need a TTB and an FDA ok first.

Update. Hark. I got lucky. A nice person alerted me that the COLA is here.

Tags:

Posted in:

flavored malt beverage


Email This Post Email This Post     |    Print This Post Print This Post     |    


Blue Moon Asserts it is Plenty Craft Enough

blastAt long last, MillerCoors filed its response, in the Blue Moon case, on July 13. The company makes some good arguments, and to my ear, these seem best:

  1. MillerCoors is expressly authorized by state and federal law to use the Blue Moon Brewing Company trade name.
    1. The safe harbor doctrine applies where either state or federal law has blessed the conduct at issue. (Here, MC nemesis, A-B, did the former a huge favor in the form of winning the Lime-A-Rita case just in time.) The company is careful to point out that the laws and regulations, not necessarily the label approvals, create the safe harbor.
    2. Should a court find liability under these circumstances, where a registered trade name is used instead of the parent company name, it would dramatically change the way that many corporations operate, effectively standing corporate America on its head. Trade names are used in many industries, and many brands have surprising corporate relationships. Just to name a few: Jiffy Lube is owned by Shell Oil Company, Haagen-Dazs is owned by Nestle in the U.S., Taco Bell and Kentucky Fried Chicken are owned by Yum! Corporation and Ben & Jerry’s ice cream is owned by Unilever.
  2. The company’s trade name and trademark registrations put Plaintiff on notice of its ownership and use of Blue Moon Brewing Company.
  3. There is no definition of “craft beer,” much less a legal one. Plaintiff relies on ever changing guidelines promulgated by the Brewers’ Association (“BA”), a trade group that has zero rulemaking authority, which defines an “American Craft Brewer,” but not the term “craft beer.” A trade association’s arbitrary definition of “craft brewer” does not give the trade association the power to abscond or control the use of the word “craft” or “crafted” by all beer industry participants.

The case goes on from here. In related news, at the time of my first post related to this brand and controversy, I was able to see and comment upon the plaintiff’s side only. Above, I am happy to have a chance to show the other side. Outside the court papers, the company’s response has been:

MillerCoors is tremendously proud of Blue Moon and has always embraced our ownership and support of this wonderful brand. The class action filed against MillerCoors in California is without merit and contradicted by Blue Moon Brewing Company’s 20-year history of brewing creative beers of the highest quality. There are countless definitions of “craft,” none of which are legal definitions. We choose to judge beer by the quality, skill and passion that goes into brewing it. Back in 1995, Keith Villa, Blue Moon’s founder and head brewmaster had to work extremely hard to convince people to try his cloudy, Belgian-style beer. Today, MillerCoors is proud that Blue Moon has invited millions of drinkers to try something new, while helping pave the way for the current explosion of creativity in the brewing community.

If anyone wants to send funds I will consider setting up the Evan Parent Sympathy Society, to make reparations for the grave injustices he has encountered. It is not easy to be a beer aficionado. On a slightly more serious note, I propose that the company should seek to settle this suit by inviting the beer aficionado to spend a week at their brewery, brew it his way, up to 1,000 gallons, and see who wants to drink it.

Tags:

,

Posted in:

flavored malt beverage


Email This Post Email This Post     |    Print This Post Print This Post     |    


Rye Beer

 

Latrobe did a “brilliant” job here, picking up on a lot of important trends.

Let’s see how many instructive legal issues this one label raises. Extra points for anyone who can raise additional issues. No more ALS challenges, please.

  1. It is beer but it more or less screams spirits.
  2. In a variety of ways. (For example, the brand name refers to moonshine paraphernalia, as Tickle’s sidekick helpfully explains.*)
  3. Within the rules, probably.
  4. Even though spirits terms are not allowed on beer labels.
  5. Even though this product contains and purports to contain absolutely no whiskey of any sort.
  6. It mentions George Dickel at least three times.
  7. It mentions Rye but not Rye Whiskey. This is very smart in that, though they mean about the same thing to most people, rye is just a grain, and it’s not necessarily whiskey without the second word attached. Like Bourbon is not sufficient on even a Bourbon Whiskey label, without the second word.
  8. Latrobe used a formula, notwithstanding that TTB has eased way up on formula requirements.
  9. The label raises a lot of good trademark issues, tied up with Latrobe’s use of another company’s highly protected brand name.
  10. TTB seems to be allowing the term “refreshing” these days, on a pretty liberal basis, even though this policy has wavered a bit over the years.

This Tequila-themed beer shows that the above Whiskey-themed beer label is not just a fluke.

What did we miss?

* John’s parents will be proud that we have done some work for Tim Smith, Junior Johnson, The Hatfields & McCoys, Jesse Jane, Popcorn Sutton, Jesse James and other rapscallions. And this guy just looks guilty — I am not sure of what — but moonshining at least.

Tags:

, , , , ,

Posted in:

flavored malt beverage


Email This Post Email This Post     |    Print This Post Print This Post     |    


TTB Eases Way Up on Formulas for Many Beers

There is some big news from TTB, via dcbrewlaw. TTB has recently decided to ease up on the formula requirements for malt beverages made with common ingredients and processes such as some barrel aging, as well as various fruits and spices. This should help considerably with TTB’s overwhelming workload, and the related delays.

At dcbrewlaw, Dan reports:

There is good news for brewers who are tired of waiting for formula approvals from TTB (currently 74 days):  you may not need it. On June 5, 2014, TTB issued a fairly significant ruling, Ingredients and Processes Used in the Production of Beer Not Subject to Formula Requirements. The ruling clearly spells out which Exempt Ingredients and Processes are now deemed “traditional” and, therefore, do not require a TTB formula approval.

The new ruling expands upon the rules as of 2013. Here are two good examples of products that needed formula approval under the old rules, before this week, and will continue to need a formula approval prior to label approval:  Bud Light Lime; Joose. By contrast, here are two products that would no longer need formula approval:  Bourbon County, Harlem. On each, the formula is highlighted in yellow. Read more about TTB Ruling 2014-4 at dcbrewlaw and TTB’s site.

Tags:

, , ,

Posted in:

flavored malt beverage


Email This Post Email This Post     |    Print This Post Print This Post     |    


Search Bevlog


Subscribe to the RSS feed

Get bevlog via email.
Delivered by FeedBurner