Mountain Top Beverage Group, Inc. v. Wildlife Brewing N.B., Inc.

338 F. Supp. 2d 827 (2003)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Mountain Top Beverage Group, Inc. v. Wildlife Brewing N.B., Inc.

United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
338 F. Supp. 2d 827 (2003)

Facts

On July 19, 1993, B.L.S. of Sarasota (BLSS) filed an intent-to-use (ITU) trademark application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), seeking to register the mark “X 40 Wildcat” for beer and malt liquor. On August 28, 2000, BLSS filed a statement of use (SOU), a statement required of all ITU applicants following application allowance. The SOU comprised a photograph of a bottle with the mark affixed to it, together with a statement from Brady Skinner, BLSS’s president, attesting that BLSS first used the “X 40 Wildcat” mark at least as early as August 22, 2000, and that the mark was being used in interstate commerce. However, the SOU provided no details as to how the mark was used, nor did it claim there were any sales or interstate shipments of the goods. Nevertheless, on November 13, 2001, BLSS obtained a federal registration for its “X 40 Wildcat” mark. On December 3, 2001, BLSS assigned its mark to Mountain Top Beverage Group, Inc. (Mountain Top) (plaintiff). Two days later, Mountain Top commenced an action against Wildlife Brewing N.B., Inc., James Sorenson, and Pittsburgh Brewing Company (defendants) (collectively, Wildlife), asserting several claims, including Lanham Act claims against Wildlife for trademark infringement and false designation of origin regarding Wildlife’s “Wildcat” products. Wildlife counterclaimed for, among other things, cancellation of Mountain Top’s federal registration for “X 40 Wildcat.” During discovery, Wildlife adduced deposition testimony that the product depicted in the SOU was a dummy sample, meaning that the sample did not contain the actual brew to be sold. Wildlife also obtained discovery indicating that from the 1993 filing date of the ITU application through the commencement of the litigation, neither Mountain Top nor BLSS had made any sales of or conducted any marketing for products bearing “X 40 Wildcat”. Wildcat moved for a summary judgment seeking dismissal of Mountain Top’s Lanham Act claims.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Dlott, J.)

What to do next…

  1. 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 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. 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.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership