Maker's Mark Distillery, Inc. v. Diageo N. Am., Inc., s. 10–5508

Citation102 U.S.P.Q.2d 1693,679 F.3d 410
Decision Date09 May 2012
Docket NumberNos. 10–5508,10–5586,10–5819.,s. 10–5508
PartiesMAKER'S MARK DISTILLERY, INC., Plaintiff–Appellee, v. DIAGEO NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Tequila Cuervo La Rojeña, S.A. De C.V.; Jose Cuervo International, Inc.; Casa Cuervo, S.A. De C.V., Defendants–Appellants. Maker's Mark Distillery, Inc., Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Diageo North America, Inc., Defendant–Appellant, Tequila Cuervo La Rojeña, S.A. De C.V.; Jose Cuervo International, Inc.; Casa Cuervo, S.A. De C.V., Defendants. Maker's Mark Distillery, Inc., Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Diageo North America, Inc.; Tequila Cuervo La Rojeña, S.A. De C.V.; Jose Cuervo International, Inc.; Casa Cuervo, S.A. De C.V., Defendants–Appellants.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

ARGUED:Michael Aschen, Abelman Frayne & Schwab, New York, New York, J. Kevin Fee, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Edward T. Colbert, Kenyon & Kenyon LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. ON BRIEF:Michael Aschen, Anthony A. Coppola, Abelman Frayne & Schwab, New York, New York, J. Kevin Fee, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Washington, D.C., Michael A. Valenti, John E. Hanley, Valenti Hanley & Robinson, PLLC, Louisville, Kentucky, John S. Reed, Reed Weitkamp Schell & Vice, PLLC, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellants. Edward T. Colbert, Kenyon & Kenyon LLP, Washington, D.C., R. Gregg Hovious, John David Dyche, Fultz, Maddox, Hovious & Dickens PLC, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellee.

Before: MARTIN, MOORE, and COOK, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Circuit Judge.

Justice Hugo Black once wrote, “I was brought up to believe that Scotch whisky would need a tax preference to survive in competition with Kentucky bourbon.” Dep't of Revenue v. James B. Beam Distilling Co., 377 U.S. 341, 348–49, 84 S.Ct. 1247, 12 L.Ed.2d 362 (1964) (Black, J., dissenting). While there may be some truth to Justice Black's statement that paints Kentucky bourbon as such an economic force that its competitors need government protection or preference to compete with it, it does not mean a Kentucky bourbon distiller may not also avail itself of our laws to protect its assets. This brings us to the question before us today: whether the bourbon producer Maker's Mark Distillery, Inc.'s registered trademark consisting of its signature trade dress element—a red dripping wax seal—is due protection, in the form of an injunction, from a similar trade dress element on Casa Cuervo, S.A. de C.V.'s Reserva de la Familia tequila bottles. We hold that it is. The judgments of the district court in this trademark infringement case are AFFIRMED.

I.

All bourbon is whiskey, but not all whiskey is bourbon.1 Whiskey, like other distilled spirits, begins as a fermentable mash, composed of water and grains or other fermentable ingredients. The mash is heated and then cooled, yeast is introduced to ferment the sugars in the mash, and the yeast turns the sugars into alcohol and carbon dioxide. This now-alcoholic liquid is then distilled to concentrate the alcohol. Gary Regan & Mardee Haidin Regan, The Bourbon Companion 32–33 (1998). The composition of the mash, and the aging, treating, and flavoring of the distilled alcohol, determine the flavor, color, and character of the distilled spirit. In the case of bourbon, the corn-based mash and aging in charred new oak barrels impart a distinct mellow flavor and caramel color. Distillers compete intensely on flavor, but also through branding and marketing; the history of bourbon, in particular, illustrates why strong branding and differentiation is important in the distilled spirits market.

The legend of the birth of bourbon is not without controversy: “As many counties of Kentucky claim the first production of Bourbon as Greek cities quarrel over the birthplace of Homer.” H.F. Willkie, Beverage Spirits in America—A Brief History 19 (3d ed. 1949). The generally accepted and oft-repeated story is that “the first Bourbon whiskey ... made from a mash containing at least fifty percent corn, is usually credited to a Baptist minister, The Reverend Elijah Craig, in 1789, at Georgetown, [Kentucky],” just prior to Kentucky's joining the Union as a state in 1792. Id. But it is more likely that Kentucky whiskey was first distilled at Fort Harrod, the first permanent European settlement in what is now Kentucky, in 1774. Charles K. Cowdery, Bourbon, Straight: The Uncut and Unfiltered Story of American Whiskey 3–4 (2004); accordWillkie,supra, at 19. Kentucky's settlers distilled whiskey using methods similar to those “used in Scotland and Ireland for hundreds of years,” Willkie,supra, at 20, except that Kentucky whiskey was made mostly from corn, a crop unknown to Europeans before Columbus ventured to America. Cowdery, Bourbon, Straight,supra, at 2. Though “most [American] colonial whiskey was made from rye,” id. at 3, corn was easy to grow in Kentucky soil, and surplus corn was often used to make whiskey. Id. at 4.

The name “bourbon” itself is easier to trace: one of the original nine counties of Kentucky was Bourbon County, Willkie,supra, at 20, named in honor of the French royal family. Charles K. Cowdery, How Bourbon Whiskey Really Got Its Famous Name,Bourbon Country Reader, July 1996. [Kentucky] whiskey was shipped from Limestone, a riverside port in Bourbon County,” down the Ohio river to the Mississippi, bound for New Orleans. Regan & Regan,supra, at 14. Whiskey shipped from the port in Bourbon County came to be known as “Old Bourbon,” and later, simply “Bourbon,” to distinguish it from Pennsylvania Rye or other whiskeys. Cowdery, How Bourbon Whiskey Really Got Its Famous Name, supra. The name “bourbon” at that time meant whiskey made from mostly corn in Kentucky or points west. But it was likely not until “sometime between 1823 and ... 1845 that Dr. James Crow “perfect[ed] the sour-mash method of whiskey-making”—the dominant process in use today that, when coupled with aging in charred new oak barrels, produces modern bourbon's familiar caramel color and distinctive taste. Regan & Regan,supra, at 15.

While in the early years [w]hiskey was whiskey, as everybody knew,” some bourbon distillers began to brand their bourbons to capitalize on the differences between [g]ood Kentucky Bourbon” and all the rest. Willkie,supra, at 22. Dr. Crow, a Kentuckian by way of Scotland, “insist[ed] upon strict sanitation in his manufacture,” and branded his bourbon with his name; other Kentucky families followed suit in an effort to differentiate their products. Id. Crow's branding tactics seem to have worked, as his bourbon accumulated prominent fans. For example, bourbon drinker Ulysses S. Grant preferred Old Crow over other bourbons, Julia Reed, Bourbon's Beauty,Newsweek, Dec. 21, 2008, as did all three of Congress's “Great Triumvirate,” Henry Clay, John C. Calhoun, and Daniel Webster. Gerald Carson & Mike Veach, The Social History of Bourbon 47 (2010).

Success attracts imitators, and in the late nineteenth century “rectifiers” began to crowd the market, selling “a product that they would call ‘Kentucky Bourbon’ using neutral spirits, flavoring agents and artificial coloring with only some aged whiskey in the product.” Mike Veach, The Taft Decision,The Filson, Winter 2009, at 4. A hotly contested legal and lobbying war between the rectifiers and traditional “straight whiskey” distillers erupted, culminating in President William Taft's official interpretation, in 1909, of the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act; Taft's interpretation settled the question of what spirits could be labeled as “whiskey.” Id. The rectifiers lost and were required to label their product “imitation whiskey.” See id.; see also H. Parker Willis, What Whiskey Is,McClure's Magazine, 1909–10, at 687–903. The ruling only increased distillers' incentives to differentiate themselves and their products. “Before the Taft ruling, few brands were nationally known.... But, under the new regulations, labels had to tell both the process and materials of manufacture. Whiskey ... now began to appear under distinctive labels, competing with other brands on its own merits.” Willkie,supra, at 26. After Prohibition was repealed, the distilled spirits industry consolidated and matured, id. at 27, and bourbon continued to attract notable adherents. Ian Fleming, the writer who created the James Bond character that famously favored martinis, switched from martinis to bourbon as his drink of choice. John Pearson, Rough Rise of a Dream Hero,Life, Oct. 14, 1966, at 113, 126. And Harry S. Truman started his day with a walk followed by “a rubdown, a shot of bourbon, and a light breakfast.” Univ. of Va. Miller Cntr., Harry S. Truman: Family Life, http:// millercenter. org/ president/ truman/ essays/ biography/ 7.

In recognition of bourbon's unique place in American culture and commerce, and in the spirit of the Taft decision, Congress in 1964 designated bourbon as a “distinctive product[ ] of the United States,” 27 C.F.R. § 5.22( l )(1), and prescribed restrictions on which distilled spirits may bear the label “bourbon.” Federal regulations require that bourbon whiskey to, among other things, be aged in charred new oak barrels, contain certain proportions of mash ingredients, and be barreled and bottled at certain proofs. § 5.22(b). Importantly, whiskey made for consumption within the United States cannot be called bourbon unless it is made in the United States. § 5.22( l )(1). While bourbon is strongly associated with Kentucky, and while [ninety-five] percent of the world's supply of bourbon comes from Kentucky,” Jessie Halladay, Kentucky's Libation Vacations,Courier–J., Feb. 26, 2012, at D1, some notable bourbons are made in other states.2

Maker's Mark occupies a central place in the modern story of bourbon. The Samuels family, founder of the Maker's Mark distillery in Loretto, Kentucky, has produced whiskey in Kentucky nearly continuously from the eighteenth century...

To continue reading

Request your trial
101 cases
  • Critter Control, Inc. v. Young
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee
    • September 8, 2014
    ...638, 641 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Maker's Mark Distillery, Inc. v. Diageo N. Am., Inc., 703 F.Supp.2d 671, 687 (W.D. Ky. 2010), aff'd, 679 F.3d 410 (6th Cir. 2012); Kebab Gyros, Inc. v. Riyad, 2009 WL 5170194, *8 (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 17, 2009) (Trauger, J.). Further, although the word "critter" may we......
  • Groeneveld Transp. Efficiency, Inc. v. Lubecore Int'l, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • September 12, 2013
    ...Gibson Guitar Corp. v. Paul Reed Smith Guitars, LP, 423 F.3d 539, 549 n.13 (6th Cir. 2005), and Maker's Mark Distillery, Inc. v. Diageo N. Am., Inc., 679 F.3d 410, 423 (6th Cir. 2012) (noting, respectively, that purchasers of $3,000 guitars and $100 bottles of tequila likely exercise a high......
  • Christian Louboutin S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent Am. Holding, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • September 5, 2012
    ...discussed the doctrine, but made clear that it has not yet decided whether or not to adopt it. See Maker's Mark Distillery, Inc. v. Diageo N. Am., Inc., 679 F.3d 410, 417–19 (6th Cir.2012). The Ninth Circuit has applied the doctrine inconsistently. See1 McCarthy on Trademarks § 7:80 (4th ed......
  • Deere & Co. v. FIMCO Inc., CASE NO. 5:15–CV–105–TBR
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Kentucky
    • March 8, 2017
    ...is "likelihood of confusion," this statement is an improper legal conclusion. [Id. ] See Maker's Mark Distillery, Inc. v. Diageo N. Am., Inc. , 679 F.3d 410, 419 (6th Cir. 2012) ("In any case, a court considering a claim for trademark infringement must determine the likelihood of consumer c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • A FRAGILITY THEORY OF TRADEMARK FUNCTIONALITY.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 169 No. 6, June 2021
    • June 1, 2021
    ...of a design patent dispute to reject appellant's argument). (128) See, e.g., Maker's Mark Distillery, Inc. v. Diageo North Am., Inc., 679 F.3d 410, 418 (6th Cir. 2012) ("It seems we have not yet plainly stated which test we would apply under aesthetic functionality doctrine, or that we have......
  • The Public Policy Argument Against Trademark Licensee Estoppel and Naked Licensing.
    • United States
    • Missouri Law Review Vol. 85 No. 4, September 2020
    • September 22, 2020
    ...[https://perma.cc/QU9Y-MWVP]. (43.) Maker's Mark Distillery, Inc. v. Diageo N. Am., 679 F.3d 410, 419 (6th Cir. (44.) Pierre N. Leval, Trademark: Champion of Free Speech, 27 COLUM. J.L. & ARTS 187, 191 (2004). (45.) 15 U.S.C. [section] 1115 (2018). (46.) In Re McGinley, 660 F.2d 481, 48......
  • Living with the Merchandising Right (or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Free-Riding Stories).
    • United States
    • Yale Journal of Law & Technology No. 25, January 2023
    • January 1, 2023
    ...482 (5th Cir. 2008) (footnotes omitted). (186) Id. at 483. (187) See, e.g., Maker's Mark Distillery, Inc. v. Diageo North America, Inc., 679 F.3d 410 (6th Cir. (188) In the actual litigation, the shoe was protected as a contrasting color with the Second Circuit citing Qualitex for the princ......
  • Functionality Crumbles under Pocky
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Landslide No. 14-1, September 2021
    • September 1, 2021
    ...WL 7055770 [hereinafter INTA Brief]; Maker’s Mark Distillery, Inc. v. Diageo N. Am., Inc., 703 F. Supp. 2d 671 (W.D. Ky. 2010), aff’d , 679 F.3d 410 (6th Cir. 2012). 39. Glico , 986 F.3d at 257. 40. Id. at 258. 41. Id. at 259–60. 42. E.g. , Third Circuit Finds Stick-Shaped Cookie Trade Dres......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT