From our private database of 35,600+ case briefs...
Genesee Brewing Company v. Stroh Brewing Company
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
124 F.3d 137 (1997)
In January 1994, Genesee Brewing Company (plaintiff) introduced JW Dundee’s Honey Brown Lager, which it referred to simply as Honey Brown. This was the first beer to be marketed with a brand name that included the words Honey Brown, and consumers adopted that convention, with many drinkers and menus referring to Genesee’s product as Honey Brown. In early 1996, Stroh Brewing Company (Stroh) (defendant) introduced its Red River Valley Honey Brown Ale to compete with Genesee. Like Genesee, Stroh emphasized Honey Brown on its label and in its advertising. Moreover, Stroh’s marketing material specifically targeted Genesee, Stroh offered coupons for its product to certain supermarket customers that bought Genesee’s product, and many former Genesee sellers switched to Stroh for their Honey Brown product. In October 1996, Genesee sued Stroh, seeking a preliminary injunction based on, among other things, Stroh’s alleged violation of § 43 of the Lanham Act by appropriating Genesee’s trademark and engaging in unfair competition. The district court denied Genesee’s request for a preliminary injunction because, among other things, Genesee was unlikely to succeed on its claims. With respect to the trademark claim, the district court held that Honey Brown was generic—and thus could not be trademarked—because Genesee’s beer was a new product that is different from others in its product class and competitors must be able to use the common descriptive words Honey Brown to describe their own products with similar attributes. With respect to unfair competition, the district court held that Stroh’s lack of bad faith doomed that claim. Genesee appealed. With respect to trademark infringement, it argued that the district court should have considered whether the primary significance of Honey Brown to consumers was its source (i.e., Genesee) and not whether competitors needed to use Honey Brown to describe their products. With respect to unfair competition, Genesee argued that its claim had merit even if Stroh did not engage in bad faith because it presented evidence that Stroh did not take all reasonable steps to avoid consumer confusion.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Calabresi, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 619,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 619,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.