Last month, Kaplan denied Constellation’s motion for impartial summary judgment. “But the fact remains that the dictionaries, however important, do not resolve this case.” “ recognizes that Modelo has more dictionaries on its side of this debate over the meaning of ‘beer’ than does ,” Kaplan wrote. The ongoing lawsuit has included arguments from both sides about the definition of beer itself. Modelo has argued that hard seltzers do not fall under the definition included in the sublicense. However, products offered within the beer category have since evolved to include hard seltzers, which are categorized as a beer by both federal and most state governments. In the agreement, beer is defined as “beer, ale, porter, stout, malt beverages, and any other versions or combinations of the foregoing, including non-alcoholic versions of any of the foregoing.” and Guam under a 2013 licensing agreement that followed A-B’s 2012 acquisition of Grupo Modelo. Constellation produces and imports Corona, Modelo and Pacifico to sell in the U.S.
Kaplan wrote that Modelo’s arguments as to why Constellation is infringing on the companies’ sublicense agreement “do not carry the day.”Īt issue in the lawsuit, which was filed in February 2021, is whether Constellation has the right to use the trademarks it licenses from Modelo for products other than beer. District Court for the Southern District of New York district judge Lewis A.
0 kommentar(er)
