Loading
Food and Beverage
9 min read
Areas of Expertise :
Trademarks, Marketing, Damages, Advertising
Published Date:
Last Modified Date:
Jurisdiction:
Federal. Ninth Circuit
Court:
Stone Brewing Co., LLC filed suit on February 12, 2018, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against Molson Coors Brewing Company and MillerCoors LLC. The complaint centered on the defendants’ use of “Stone” in connection with Keystone beer packaging and branding changes that began rolling out in 2017. The district court later granted a stipulated dismissal of Molson Coors Brewing Company, leaving MillerCoors LLC as the active defendant. After discovery rulings and dispositive-motion practice, the dispute went to a jury trial. The jury awarded Stone $56 million in damages, and the district court later denied MillerCoors’ motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial, as well as Stone’s motion for a partial new trial.
On appeal, Molson Coors Beverage Company USA LLC contested the jury verdict and post-verdict rulings in Ninth Circuit No. 23-3142. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the challenged rulings, including the district court’s rejection of the laches defense and its refusal to set aside the verdict on liability or damages. The appeal focused on likelihood of confusion under the Lanham Act and whether the trial record gave the jury a sufficient basis to evaluate marketplace perception, timing, and the use of “Stone” on Keystone packaging. The appellate decision left the $56 million trademark verdict intact.
Molson Coors rolled out its “Own the Stone” marketing campaign as part of a broader Keystone packaging refresh. The campaign’s emphasis on “Stone” later became central to disputes over branding prominence, timing, and consumer-facing messaging. Those early packaging and marketing choices affected how both sides presented the evidence on marketplace perception and historical use.
Stone Brewing filed its complaint against Molson Coors Brewing Company and MillerCoors LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, Case No. 3:18-cv-00331. The complaint alleged that Keystone’s branding presentation created a risk that consumers could misattribute product origin. From the start, the litigation centered on consumer perception, survey evidence, and damages tied to alleged brand harm.
In Document 85, the district court denied Stone Brewing’s motion for a preliminary injunction and reviewed the parties’ competing consumer survey evidence as part of its likelihood-of-confusion analysis. The court discussed a confusion survey conducted by Professor David Stewart, Ph.D., on behalf of Stone Brewing, along with critiques and alternative survey work offered by Hal Poret for the defense.
The court did not treat either study as controlling by itself. Instead, it considered the surveys as part of a broader evidentiary record that also included packaging, advertising context, marketplace conditions, and other facts relevant to how consumers encountered the competing marks.
The court granted in part Stone Brewing’s motion to compel interrogatory responses. The order reflected active case management as the parties disputed the scope and timing of discovery obligations. This stage moved the case from pleading disputes into a more detailed factual record.
The court granted in part Stone Brewing’s request to continue certain discovery deadlines. The adjustment responded to ongoing demands involving marketing materials, branding records, and communications. Discovery continued to focus on the development and presentation of Keystone’s packaging and related branding materials.
The court issued an order addressing motions to compel from both sides. Rather than entering sweeping rulings, the court required counsel to identify discrete disputes through letter briefing. This process reflected the detailed factual record being built around branding decisions, marketplace presentation, and consumer-facing materials.
After further letter briefing, the court entered another discovery order resolving outstanding disputes. The case remained in a fact-gathering posture as the parties prepared for dispositive motions and eventual trial. These discovery rulings helped define the record later used in the likelihood-of-confusion and damages phases.
Stone Brewing sought partial reconsideration of an earlier discovery ruling. The court denied the request, indicating that it would not revisit discovery decisions without adequate justification. The litigation proceeded under the discovery framework already in place.
The court granted in part and denied in part a motion to compel while also addressing related sanctions arguments. The disputes at this stage involved completeness and timeliness of production tied to historical branding, sales context, and related materials. The ruling kept discovery moving while narrowing unresolved production issues.
After trial, the jury awarded $56 million in compensatory damages to Stone Brewing. The trial record included expert evidence on consumer perception and damages, including opinions from Palmatier on consumer behavior concepts and from Carrie Distler on damages categories such as lost profits and corrective advertising. The record also included defense evidence on historical branding and usage, including input from Heidi Harris, identified as a MillerCoors archivist.
The district court denied MillerCoors’ motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial and denied Stone Brewing’s motion for a partial new trial. In addressing damages challenges, the court discussed Carrie Distler’s damages framework and treated disputes over assumptions as issues tested through cross-examination rather than grounds to disturb the verdict. The post-trial rulings also addressed challenges to Heidi Harris’s archivist-related evidence and left the trial record intact.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the challenged post-verdict rulings, including the rejection of a laches defense and challenges to liability and damages. The appellate court referenced the evidentiary record developed at trial, including survey evidence and consumer-behavior testimony. The decision left the jury’s $56 million trademark verdict undisturbed.
United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Case Name:
Stone Brewing Co., LLC v. MillerCoors LLC
Trademark Infringement
Likelihood Of Confusion
Branding
Marketing Research
Advertising and Marketing
Beverage packaging
Damages Calculations
Stone Brewing Co., LLC filed suit on February 12, 2018, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against Molson Coors Brewing Company and MillerCoors LLC. The complaint centered on the defendants’ use of “Stone” in connection with Keystone beer packaging and branding changes that began rolling out in 2017. The district court later granted a stipulated dismissal of Molson Coors Brewing Company, leaving MillerCoors LLC as the active defendant. After discovery rulings and dispositive-motion practice, the dispute went to a jury trial. The jury awarded Stone $56 million in damages, and the district court later denied MillerCoors’ motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial, as well as Stone’s motion for a partial new trial.
On appeal, Molson Coors Beverage Company USA LLC contested the jury verdict and post-verdict rulings in Ninth Circuit No. 23-3142. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the challenged rulings, including the district court’s rejection of the laches defense and its refusal to set aside the verdict on liability or damages. The appeal focused on likelihood of confusion under the Lanham Act and whether the trial record gave the jury a sufficient basis to evaluate marketplace perception, timing, and the use of “Stone” on Keystone packaging. The appellate decision left the $56 million trademark verdict intact.
Molson Coors rolled out its “Own the Stone” marketing campaign as part of a broader Keystone packaging refresh. The campaign’s emphasis on “Stone” later became central to disputes over branding prominence, timing, and consumer-facing messaging. Those early packaging and marketing choices affected how both sides presented the evidence on marketplace perception and historical use.
Stone Brewing filed its complaint against Molson Coors Brewing Company and MillerCoors LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, Case No. 3:18-cv-00331. The complaint alleged that Keystone’s branding presentation created a risk that consumers could misattribute product origin. From the start, the litigation centered on consumer perception, survey evidence, and damages tied to alleged brand harm.
In Document 85, the district court denied Stone Brewing’s motion for a preliminary injunction and reviewed the parties’ competing consumer survey evidence as part of its likelihood-of-confusion analysis. The court discussed a confusion survey conducted by Professor David Stewart, Ph.D., on behalf of Stone Brewing, along with critiques and alternative survey work offered by Hal Poret for the defense.
The court did not treat either study as controlling by itself. Instead, it considered the surveys as part of a broader evidentiary record that also included packaging, advertising context, marketplace conditions, and other facts relevant to how consumers encountered the competing marks.
The court granted in part Stone Brewing’s motion to compel interrogatory responses. The order reflected active case management as the parties disputed the scope and timing of discovery obligations. This stage moved the case from pleading disputes into a more detailed factual record.
The court granted in part Stone Brewing’s request to continue certain discovery deadlines. The adjustment responded to ongoing demands involving marketing materials, branding records, and communications. Discovery continued to focus on the development and presentation of Keystone’s packaging and related branding materials.
The court issued an order addressing motions to compel from both sides. Rather than entering sweeping rulings, the court required counsel to identify discrete disputes through letter briefing. This process reflected the detailed factual record being built around branding decisions, marketplace presentation, and consumer-facing materials.
After further letter briefing, the court entered another discovery order resolving outstanding disputes. The case remained in a fact-gathering posture as the parties prepared for dispositive motions and eventual trial. These discovery rulings helped define the record later used in the likelihood-of-confusion and damages phases.
Stone Brewing sought partial reconsideration of an earlier discovery ruling. The court denied the request, indicating that it would not revisit discovery decisions without adequate justification. The litigation proceeded under the discovery framework already in place.
The court granted in part and denied in part a motion to compel while also addressing related sanctions arguments. The disputes at this stage involved completeness and timeliness of production tied to historical branding, sales context, and related materials. The ruling kept discovery moving while narrowing unresolved production issues.
After trial, the jury awarded $56 million in compensatory damages to Stone Brewing. The trial record included expert evidence on consumer perception and damages, including opinions from Palmatier on consumer behavior concepts and from Carrie Distler on damages categories such as lost profits and corrective advertising. The record also included defense evidence on historical branding and usage, including input from Heidi Harris, identified as a MillerCoors archivist.
The district court denied MillerCoors’ motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial and denied Stone Brewing’s motion for a partial new trial. In addressing damages challenges, the court discussed Carrie Distler’s damages framework and treated disputes over assumptions as issues tested through cross-examination rather than grounds to disturb the verdict. The post-trial rulings also addressed challenges to Heidi Harris’s archivist-related evidence and left the trial record intact.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the challenged post-verdict rulings, including the rejection of a laches defense and challenges to liability and damages. The appellate court referenced the evidentiary record developed at trial, including survey evidence and consumer-behavior testimony. The decision left the jury’s $56 million trademark verdict undisturbed.
Survey Evidence Expert Witness (Plaintiff and Defense)
On the plaintiff side, Stone retained Professor David Stewart, Ph.D. to conduct a consumer confusion survey discussed in the early court record. The survey evidence was presented as part of Stone’s likelihood-of-confusion showing.
On the defense side, MillerCoors retained Hal Poret to review Stewart’s survey and to conduct a separate consumer study. The early record describes Poret as presenting lower measured confusion in some scenarios based on the study design and representations used.
Consumer Perception / Marketing Expert Witness (Plaintiff)
Stone presented Palmatier as a consumer-perception/marketing expert. The post-trial and appellate record reflects disputes over the scope and admissibility of his opinions, with the court allowing the opinions that were admitted at trial to remain part of the evidentiary record supporting the verdict.
Damages Expert Witness (Plaintiff)
Stone presented Carrie Distler as a damages expert addressing monetary harm and damages concepts connected to the infringement claims. Post-trial rulings discuss challenges to the damages evidence and explain why those disputes did not justify overturning the jury’s damages award.
Historical Records / Archivist Expert Witness (Defense)
MillerCoors relied on Ms. Heidi Harris, identified as the company’s archivist, in connection with historical branding and records. The post-trial record addresses challenges to her qualification and reliability and explains why the court allowed that evidence.
Trademark Expert Witness
In Lanham Act reverse-confusion disputes, trademark experts may be consulted to address how confusion factors apply to packaging, advertising, source identification, sponsorship, and brand association. This type of analysis can help connect the legal standard to the consumer-facing evidence presented at trial, but the public record cited here should not be read as identifying a separate retained trademark expert for this case.
Ground reverse confusion claims in real marketplace exposure
Courts look closely at what consumers actually see on packaging, advertising, and retail-facing materials. In this dispute, the prominence of “Stone” on Keystone branding mattered because the evidence focused on how consumers encountered the competing marks in the marketplace.
Match survey design to actual purchasing conditions
Survey disputes can turn on whether the stimuli reflect real consumer experiences. Challenges involving altered images, packaging presentation, and point-of-sale context show why survey design must be carefully documented and tied to ordinary purchasing conditions.
Build laches defenses around a precise timeline
The rejection of the laches defense shows that timing arguments depend on concrete chronology, not broad claims about delay. Parties asserting laches need a clear record showing when the disputed conduct began, when the plaintiff knew or should have known, and how the timing affected the defense.
Make damages assumptions clear and trial-ready
Damages opinions are more likely to survive post-trial and appellate review when the categories, assumptions, and calculations are explained in a way the jury can evaluate. In this case, disputes over assumptions were treated as issues for cross-examination rather than grounds to set aside the verdict.
Preserve a clean record for appellate review
Trademark trials often turn on evidence-heavy issues such as confusion, survey methodology, branding history, and damages. Careful evidentiary rulings, timely objections, and a well-developed record can reduce reversal risk on appeal.
Stone Brewing v. Molson Coors moved from the 2018 complaint and discovery disputes to a jury trial, a $56 million compensatory verdict for Stone Brewing, post-trial motion practice, and a Ninth Circuit ruling that left the verdict intact. The case centered on a Lanham Act reverse-confusion theory tied to Keystone packaging and the use of “Stone” in consumer-facing branding. The record connected likelihood of confusion to marketplace evidence, including packaging presentation, advertising context, survey evidence, consumer-behavior testimony, and damages analysis. The final appellate outcome preserved the jury’s finding that the evidence supported liability and damages under the trademark record presented at trial.
Why did the Keystone packaging changes become central to the trademark dispute?
The Keystone packaging changes became central because Stone Brewing challenged the increased use of “Stone” in consumer-facing branding tied to the 2017 rollout. The dispute focused on whether that presentation could create reverse confusion by leading consumers to associate Keystone beer with Stone Brewing. The courts evaluated the issue through packaging, advertising context, marketplace presentation, and evidence of consumer perception.
Where was the case litigated, and what case numbers identify the district court and appeal?
The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California as Case No. 3:18-cv-00331. The appeal proceeded in the Ninth Circuit as No. 23-3142. These identifiers help locate the docket history, key orders, post-trial rulings, and appellate disposition.
What was the damages award in the trial court record?
The district court’s post-trial order stated that the jury awarded Stone Brewing $56 million in compensatory damages. The district court denied MillerCoors’ motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial and also denied Stone Brewing’s motion for a partial new trial. Those rulings left the jury’s damages award intact at the trial-court level.
Did Molson Coors obtain a retrial or reversal on appeal?
No. On December 30, 2024, the Ninth Circuit affirmed rulings that left the verdict in place, including the rejection of a laches defense and challenges to liability and damages. The appellate decision did not set aside the jury’s verdict.
What legal standard governed trademark confusion in this case?
The case turned on likelihood of confusion under the Lanham Act, a multifactor inquiry focused on whether consumers are likely to be confused about product source, sponsorship, or affiliation. In this record, the courts evaluated that question through packaging, advertising, marketplace context, survey evidence, and consumer perception. The dispute connected trademark-confusion proof to what consumers encountered in ordinary purchasing conditions.
Survey Evidence Expert Witness (Plaintiff and Defense)
On the plaintiff side, Stone retained Professor David Stewart, Ph.D. to conduct a consumer confusion survey discussed in the early court record. The survey evidence was presented as part of Stone’s likelihood-of-confusion showing.
On the defense side, MillerCoors retained Hal Poret to review Stewart’s survey and to conduct a separate consumer study. The early record describes Poret as presenting lower measured confusion in some scenarios based on the study design and representations used.
Consumer Perception / Marketing Expert Witness (Plaintiff)
Stone presented Palmatier as a consumer-perception/marketing expert. The post-trial and appellate record reflects disputes over the scope and admissibility of his opinions, with the court allowing the opinions that were admitted at trial to remain part of the evidentiary record supporting the verdict.
Damages Expert Witness (Plaintiff)
Stone presented Carrie Distler as a damages expert addressing monetary harm and damages concepts connected to the infringement claims. Post-trial rulings discuss challenges to the damages evidence and explain why those disputes did not justify overturning the jury’s damages award.
Historical Records / Archivist Expert Witness (Defense)
MillerCoors relied on Ms. Heidi Harris, identified as the company’s archivist, in connection with historical branding and records. The post-trial record addresses challenges to her qualification and reliability and explains why the court allowed that evidence.
Trademark Expert Witness
In Lanham Act reverse-confusion disputes, trademark experts may be consulted to address how confusion factors apply to packaging, advertising, source identification, sponsorship, and brand association. This type of analysis can help connect the legal standard to the consumer-facing evidence presented at trial, but the public record cited here should not be read as identifying a separate retained trademark expert for this case.
Ground reverse confusion claims in real marketplace exposure
Courts look closely at what consumers actually see on packaging, advertising, and retail-facing materials. In this dispute, the prominence of “Stone” on Keystone branding mattered because the evidence focused on how consumers encountered the competing marks in the marketplace.
Match survey design to actual purchasing conditions
Survey disputes can turn on whether the stimuli reflect real consumer experiences. Challenges involving altered images, packaging presentation, and point-of-sale context show why survey design must be carefully documented and tied to ordinary purchasing conditions.
Build laches defenses around a precise timeline
The rejection of the laches defense shows that timing arguments depend on concrete chronology, not broad claims about delay. Parties asserting laches need a clear record showing when the disputed conduct began, when the plaintiff knew or should have known, and how the timing affected the defense.
Make damages assumptions clear and trial-ready
Damages opinions are more likely to survive post-trial and appellate review when the categories, assumptions, and calculations are explained in a way the jury can evaluate. In this case, disputes over assumptions were treated as issues for cross-examination rather than grounds to set aside the verdict.
Preserve a clean record for appellate review
Trademark trials often turn on evidence-heavy issues such as confusion, survey methodology, branding history, and damages. Careful evidentiary rulings, timely objections, and a well-developed record can reduce reversal risk on appeal.
Stone Brewing v. Molson Coors moved from the 2018 complaint and discovery disputes to a jury trial, a $56 million compensatory verdict for Stone Brewing, post-trial motion practice, and a Ninth Circuit ruling that left the verdict intact. The case centered on a Lanham Act reverse-confusion theory tied to Keystone packaging and the use of “Stone” in consumer-facing branding. The record connected likelihood of confusion to marketplace evidence, including packaging presentation, advertising context, survey evidence, consumer-behavior testimony, and damages analysis. The final appellate outcome preserved the jury’s finding that the evidence supported liability and damages under the trademark record presented at trial.
Why did the Keystone packaging changes become central to the trademark dispute?
The Keystone packaging changes became central because Stone Brewing challenged the increased use of “Stone” in consumer-facing branding tied to the 2017 rollout. The dispute focused on whether that presentation could create reverse confusion by leading consumers to associate Keystone beer with Stone Brewing. The courts evaluated the issue through packaging, advertising context, marketplace presentation, and evidence of consumer perception.
Where was the case litigated, and what case numbers identify the district court and appeal?
The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California as Case No. 3:18-cv-00331. The appeal proceeded in the Ninth Circuit as No. 23-3142. These identifiers help locate the docket history, key orders, post-trial rulings, and appellate disposition.
What was the damages award in the trial court record?
The district court’s post-trial order stated that the jury awarded Stone Brewing $56 million in compensatory damages. The district court denied MillerCoors’ motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial and also denied Stone Brewing’s motion for a partial new trial. Those rulings left the jury’s damages award intact at the trial-court level.
Did Molson Coors obtain a retrial or reversal on appeal?
No. On December 30, 2024, the Ninth Circuit affirmed rulings that left the verdict in place, including the rejection of a laches defense and challenges to liability and damages. The appellate decision did not set aside the jury’s verdict.
What legal standard governed trademark confusion in this case?
The case turned on likelihood of confusion under the Lanham Act, a multifactor inquiry focused on whether consumers are likely to be confused about product source, sponsorship, or affiliation. In this record, the courts evaluated that question through packaging, advertising, marketplace context, survey evidence, and consumer perception. The dispute connected trademark-confusion proof to what consumers encountered in ordinary purchasing conditions.
What did the case record show about brand-and-packaging disputes?
The record tied the Keystone branding rollout to timing issues, consumer-facing packaging, advertising, and the laches defense. It also showed how marketplace evidence, including what appeared on cans, in ads, and in campaign messaging, can become central to a reverse-confusion theory. The post-trial and appellate rulings followed a record that supported the jury’s findings on liability and damages.
Trademark Infringement
Likelihood Of Confusion
Branding
Marketing Research
Advertising and Marketing
Beverage packaging
Damages Calculations
Wage And Hour Disputes, +4
Food and Beverage
Food And Beverage, +4
Food and Beverage
What did the case record show about brand-and-packaging disputes?
The record tied the Keystone branding rollout to timing issues, consumer-facing packaging, advertising, and the laches defense. It also showed how marketplace evidence, including what appeared on cans, in ads, and in campaign messaging, can become central to a reverse-confusion theory. The post-trial and appellate rulings followed a record that supported the jury’s findings on liability and damages.