Sour Mash? Jack Daniel's Sues Bargain Whiskey Over Label, Bottle Design
Jack Daniel's has sued the maker of Lonehand Whiskey claiming that it designed its label and bottle to look deceptively close to its "Old No. 7" design.
April 23, 2018 at 06:03 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
The maker of Jack Daniel's has sued the distiller and distributor of a cheaper, rival Tennessee sour mash whiskey, claiming it designed its label and bottle to look deceptively similar to the iconic Jack Daniel's “Old No. 7″ design.
Lawyers for Jack Daniel's Properties Inc., which makes the nation's best-selling whiskey, filed a trademark and trade dress lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on April 20 against the makers of Lonehand Whiskey.
Jack Daniel's complaint contends that Lonehand's makers deliberately copied its trademarked square bottle shape “with angled shoulders, beveled corners, and a ribbed neck.” The complaint also claims that Lonehand has incorporated elements of Jack Daniel's trade dress, including its black cap, black neck wrap, arched lettering of the brand with the word “whiskey” in script, and the words “Tennessee Sour Mash” in the lower portion of the label. Jack Daniel's claims that Lonehand has encouraged retailers to place its product next to Jack Daniel's “and to use promotional materials that employ elements of the Jack Daniels Trade Dress, including white on black shading and arched lettering.”
“Defendants have pursued a pattern of conduct and an intentional business strategy designed to mislead and deceive consumers into believing that the accused whiskies are made, put out, licensed or sponsored by, or affiliated or associated with, Jack Daniel's and thereby to unjustly enrich themselves by capitalizing on the goodwill inherent in the JDPI trademarks and the Jack Daniel's trade dress,” wrote Jack Daniel's lawyers, D. Peter Harvey and Caitlin Conway of San Francisco's Harvey & Co.
The suit brings claims against Dallas-based Dynasty Spirits Inc., which according the complaint distills Lonehand, and Houston-based Buffalo Bayou Distilleries LLC, which the complaint claims labels, packages and ships it. In addition to its trademark and trade dress claims, Jack Daniels is also pursuing a false advertising claim contending that the Lonehand label, which says “ESTD 1983,” is misleading since Dynasty was incorporated in 2012 and Buffalo Bayou Distilleries was formed in 2014.
“By making the accused statement, defendants have materially and deliberately deceived consumers about their history, brand, and accused Tennessee whiskey,” the complaint said.
The complaint also cites recent, highly critical reviews of Lonehand on totalwine.com to make the case that consumers' association of the two whiskeys could dilute the Jack Daniel's brand.
“Do not buy unless its a joke gift i will be dumping out …its that bad,” wrote one review. “This is to Jack Daniels what a pogo stick is to a BMW,” added another.
(As a brief aside, one might fairly ask: “How did this fight over Tennessee whiskey end up in a California federal court?” Although the Jack Daniel's Distillery is located in Lynchburg, Tennessee, JDPI, the owner and licensor of the Jack Daniel's trademark and trade dress, is based in San Rafael, California. Hence, the complaint claims that Northern California is the proper venue.)
Phil Lynch, a spokesman for Jack Daniel's parent company Brown-Forman, said the company “will let the court filing speak for itself.”
Representatives from Dynasty Spirits didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. Maria Echeverry, general manager of Buffalo Bayou, declined to comment.
The April 20 suit isn't the first time that Jack Daniel's has gone on the offensive against an upstart brand accused of pilfering its design. In 2013, the company sued the maker of Popcorn Sutton's Tennessee White Whiskey claiming it copied the Jack Daniel's label and bottle design. That litigation settled in 2014 with the maker of Popcorn Sutton's agreeing to change its packaging, according to trade website The Spirits Business.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTravis Lenkner Returns to Burford Capital With an Eye on Future Growth Opportunities
Legal Speak's 'Sidebar With Saul' Part V: Strange Days of Trump Trial Culminate in Historic Verdict
1 minute readLegal Speak's 'Sidebar with Saul' Part IV: Deliberations Begin in First Trump Criminal Trial
1 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Amid 'Existential War for Talent', Paul Weiss Promotes Both Equity and Non-Equity Partners
- 2After Regime Change, Syria Remains Liable in US Federal Courts for Alleged Assad-era Terrorism Support
- 3Prosecutors Want Tom Girardi to Serve 14 Years In Prison. His Lawyers Don't Want Him Behind Bars.
- 4Atkins Likely to Bring Pro-Business, Light Regulatory Touch to SEC, Say Agency Observers
- 5The Boom Continues: These Firms All Opened New Florida Offices in 2024
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250