Brewery Settles Lawsuit Over ‘Big Juicy’ Brand And Rebrands To ‘Juicy Big’

I have to admit, the volume of trademark dispute stories in the brewing industry I've done over the course of these many years here at Techdirt have surprisingly slowed down the last few years. I'm not sure if this is a function of the slowdown in industry growth in the craft brewing industry, market consolidation that likely occurred during COVID, or just a greater awareness of trademark risks as a result of the previous explosion of disputes, but it's definitely down.

But that doesn't mean they've disappeared entirely. Earlier this year, No-Li Brewhouse sued Redhook Brewery in Seattle for infringing its trademark with its Big Juicy Ballard" brand (filing embedded below). Powering its lawsuit was No-Li's trademarked term Big Juicy," which the USPTO actually made an incontestable mark in 2023. Now, as is typical for me, I lay the blame for this at the feet of the USPTO. After all, juicy" is a ubiquitous term in the craft brewing industry, meaning that apparently the differentiator that made the mark fanciful and a source identifier was merely its pairing with big," an obviously generic term. There is zero chance a valid beer trademark could be registered for juicy," but somehow big juicy" is valid and incontestable? Cool.

Well, because this kind of trademark bullying works, Redhook Brewery has settled the suit with No-Li.

The case was dismissed on Wednesday because the parties had settled on an agreement, court records show.

No-Li attorney Mark Hendricksen said he is not at liberty to disclose details of the confidential settlement.

While the full terms of the settlement are not public, of course, we do know that Redhook has agreed to a name change. Well, of sorts, anyway.

Redhook's website, however, shows its beer in question appears to have gone from Redhook's Big Juicy Ballard" beer to Juicy Big Ballard."

The result of the suit allows No-Li to keep its trademark and also led to a rebrand along the lines of what Redhook wanted. They had an existing trademark for Big Ballard, so I think this was a distinctive way for them to go back to their logo and use Juicy' in a descriptive way," Hendricksen wrote in an email Friday.

The fact that's satisfactory to No-Li only highlights just how silly and petty this all is. The change in name is insignificant to the point of absurdity. I can promise you that it will have absolutely zero effect on public confusion or lack thereof when it comes to differentiating these two brands. This is pure pint-of-blood stuff.

But again, to our friends at the USPTO... why? Why can we not simply apply just a little more scrutiny to these industry specific applications for trademarks that use generic combinations of words? Why must our legal system be clogged up worse than an alcoholic's arteries purely because of your inability to do your jobs?