Author: Patrick Morin

When Does the Court of Public Opinion Count More Than A Court of Law?

Posted on by Patrick Morin

Recently, Bell’s Brewery of Kalamazoo, Michigan filed a complaint in federal court against tiny upstart brewer Innovation Brewing of Sylva, North Carolina. Innovation Brewing filed a trademark application for their name and Bell’s claims that if such a trademark was granted it would create confusion in the marketplace since they use two phrases in their advertising: “Inspired Brewing” and “Bottling Innovation Since 1985”. Whether Bell’s is successful or not in this dispute it may not matter as much as how their customers perceive their actions.

The complaint has created a negative social media storm where many fans and customers of both breweries view these actions as contradictory to what makes the craft beer industry so special. The craft brewery revolution is about collaboration not competition. The people who truly care about beer and bring passion to the craft band together to share ideas and their love of quality ales and lagers. But when breweries instead choose to duke it out, who are the real winners and losers? Bell’s, which made more than 310,000 barrels last year in contrast to Innovation which makes only about 500 barrels a year and sells exclusively in North Carolina, is being perceived as a “bully”.

Although Bell’s is one of craft beer’s greatest independent success stories, this isn’t the first time they’ve used courts to settle their affairs. In 2011, Bell’s filed a challenge against a California-based brewer for its Copper Bell beer, but the matter was settled and the brand later withdrawn.

But Bell’s isn’t the only one using legal means to protect their brand. Recently, Lagunitas Brewing sued rival Sierra Nevada Brewing over its Hop Hunter IPA label. However, within a few days after filing the complaint, amid the firestorm reaction from angry customers using social media to voice their disappointment, Lagunitas founder Tony Magee quickly dropped the suit. Currently, New Belgium Brewing Co., the third largest craft brewer in the country, and Oasis Texas Brewing Co., a relatively new upstart, are slugging it out in court over the use of the name “Slow Ride” IPA. Just as in the other disputes above, fans are turning to social media to voice their concerns, but time will only tell the effect it will have on the outcome of this dispute.

Regardless of which brewery is right in the eyes of the law in these types of disputes, it only brings temporary relief. What matters most in the long run is how customers view their actions. In the case of Bell’s, several bar owners have pulled Bell’s from their menus until further notice and several brewing associations have signed petitions voicing their support of Innovation. In the spirit of the industry, it would be nice to see them resolve it amicably. Considering the cost of litigation, which in the case of a trademark defense can be between $40,000-50,000, wouldn’t the money be better spent on expanding their businesses? I hope other craft brewers will learn from these lessons and consider collaboration before litigation.

New York Passes GMO Labeling Bill

Posted on by Patrick Morin

On March 3, 2015, the New York State Assembly Committee on Consumer Affairs and Protection voted to pass bill which would require all food made with genetically modified organisms (“GMOs”) to state the presence of GMOs on their label.

The bill would require labeling for raw agricultural commodities, processed foods, seed and seed stock produced with genetic engineering.   Under this proposed law, any food for human consumption, seed or seed stock offered for retail sale in New York is misbranded if it is entirely genetically engineered or partially produced with genetic engineering and that fact is not clearly and conspicuously disclosed on the product’s packaging.  Fines for misbranding are a civil penalty of not more than $1000 per day, per product.

Any person, firm, corporation, or other legal entity may be held responsible for false labels and misrepresentations, but retailers are not subject to penalties unless: (a) the retailer is the manufacturer of the GMO raw agricultural commodity, processed food, seed, or seed stock and sells the GMO product under a brand it owns; or (b) the retailer’s failure to label was knowing and willful.

However, there are various exemptions for misbranding built into the bill.  For example, food consisting entirely of, or derived entirely from, an animal that has not itself been produced with genetic engineering does not need to be labeled as GMO, regardless of whether the animal was fed with any food produced with genetic engineering.

Other exemptions include:  products that were grown, raised, produced, or derived without the knowing and intentional use of GMO seed or food if the manufacturer provides a written statement in support of this lack of knowledge and intent; alcoholic beverages that are subject to regulation by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law; food that has been lawfully certified to be labeled, marketed, and offered for sale as “organic”; and food that is served, sold, or otherwise provided in any restaurant, food facility, or food retailer that is engaged in the sale of food prepared and intended for immediate human consumption.

This proposed statute bears a striking similarity to the statewide GMO labeling bill rejected by California lawmakers in 2014, with nearly identical definitions and safe harbor exemptions.  Unlike the proposed California law, however, New York would enforce the law through civil penalties issued by the State Department of Agriculture and markets rather than through an injunction sought by the state Attorney General to stop continued violations of the law.  Further, unlike Connecticut and Maine’s GMO-labeling laws, New York’s proposed law does not have a triggering requirement based on when a certain number of states approve related legislation.

If passed, New York’s GMO labeling law would take effect twenty-four months after it becomes law. New York would be the fourth state to approve a GMO-labeling law, which would then trigger Connecticut and Maine’s related laws.  New York’s GMO labeling law, however, will likely face legal challenges similar to the lawsuit filed by the Grocery Manufacturers Association seeking to rescind Vermont’s GMO-labeling statute.

Stay turned for further updates as the bill makes it way through the New York state assembly.

Calories Are Now Criminal

Posted on by Patrick Morin

Over the past two years small business owners spent considerable time implementing procedures to comply with the health care requirements under the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.  Just when these business owners thought they could turn their attention back to doing what they do best, running their business, regulators issue new compliance requirements, this time targeting the food and beverage industry.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently issued a final rule on food labeling, as required under the Affordable Care Act, which provides for nutrition labeling of “standard” menu items for chain restaurants with 20 or more locations and “similar retail food establishments.”  If you are a restaurant owner the menu labeling rule will most certainly impact on your bottom line.  The rule is expected to cost the food industry some $315 million to implement and about $44 million per year after that, according to the FDA’s original cost-benefit analysis.  In addition to restaurants, the rule applies to food facilities in entertainment venues, such as movie theaters and amusement parks, take-out food establishments, bakeries, convenience stores, grocery stores and supermarkets.

So what’s required?  Calories must be displayed clearly and conspicuously on menus and menu boards next to the name or price of the item.  Menus and menu boards must also display “2,000 calories a day is used for general nutrition advice, but calorie needs vary.” Businesses must provide, upon consumer request, written nutritional information for each menu item.  The rule applies to “standard menu items”, including food on display and self-service food, but not daily specials, temporary menu items and condiments for general use typically available on a counter or table.  It is important to note that certain alcoholic beverages listed on menus or menu boards are also included under the rule.

While the cost of compliance will vary for each establishment, non-compliance is criminal.  Criminal you say?  How?  Well, businesses that fail to comply, or don’t get it right, will have affected menu items deemed “misbranded” which is a misdemeanor under the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act.  The FDA retains the discretion to hold those with supervisory responsibility, including those who are “responsible individuals” who certify the menu labeling, criminally liable for a misbranding violation.

While the menu labeling rule will most certainly face legal challenges, it’s important for businesses to start planning for the implementation as rule goes into effect on December 1, 2015.

If you have questions about menu labeling compliance, please contact our attorneys at Morsel Law.