(IMBIBE+BLOG)

As most alcohol suppliers are now aware, California added two new statutes this year permitting alcohol suppliers to conduct contests and sweepstakes that are open to California residents. California had long been the only U.S. state that prohibited alcohol suppliers from including its residents in these kinds of promotions, but that changed in January. We previously blogged about these new laws here. The new laws offer suppliers new avenues to conduct promotions in California but it’s important to note that only specifically listed types of supplier licensees are authorized to conduct contests and sweepstakes in California. Authorized licensees are: winegrower (Type 2 License), beer and wine importer general (Type 10 License), beer manufacturer (Type 1 License), out-of-state beer manufacturer certificate holder (Type 26 License), distilled spirits manufacturer (Type 4 License), distilled spirits manufacturer’s agent (Type 5 License), distilled spirits importer general (Type 13 License), distilled spirits general rectifier (Type 24 License), rectifier (Type 7 License), out-of-state distilled spirits shipper’s certificate holder (Type 28 License), brandy manufacturer (Type 3 License), and brandy importer (Type 11 License).

The statutes specifically exclude wholesalers (Type 17 and 18 Licenses) and retailers of all types. They also exclude beer and wine importer general (Type 10 License) and distilled spirits importer general (Type 13 License) licensees that hold “only a wholesaler’s or retailer’s license as an additional license.” So, although the laws include Type 10 and Type 13 importers, those licensees would be excluded if they also hold a wholesaler’s license and no other supplier license. Accordingly, holders of the popular 9/17/20 license combination, and holders of 10/17 and 13/18 combinations are not eligible to conduct contests or sweepstakes under the new provisions. The exception to this would be if they hold another specifically included license type, such as a winegrower’s license.

We received a number of calls from suppliers unclear on whether they are included in the new laws so we hope this post helps to clarify. If you have any questions about the contest/sweepstakes laws or other promotional activities, in California or elsewhere, contact an attorney at Strike & Techel.

Imbiblog is published for general informational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. Copyright © 2013 · All Rights Reserved ·

Alcoholic beverage products typically are sold in glass or plastic bottles or in aluminum cans. There are a few alternative packaging options, such as bag-in-box and Tetra-packs, but the beer and wine section at the grocery store is mostly full of bottles and cans. Suppliers distinguish their products from competitors’ products by creating unique brand names and label designs, both of which can be protected as trademarks. But what about the package itself? Can you register your bottle shape as a trademark? The answer is yes, if the design is distinctive and not merely functional.

U.S. trademark law (15 USC § 1052(e)(5)) provides that a proposed trademark cannot be registered if it “comprises any matter that, as a whole, is functional.” This applies to colors, sounds and also to package designs. The U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (“USPTO”) will not grant trademark registration, and the exclusivity that trademark registration provides, if it would foreclose competitors from using a design that is functional. A four-factor test was established to determine whether a container design is functional: 1) whether a utility patent exists that discloses the utilitarian advantages of the design sought to be registered; 2) whether applicant’s advertising touts the utilitarian advantages of the design; 3) whether alternative designs are available that serve the same utilitarian purpose; and, 4) whether the design results from a comparatively simple or inexpensive method of manufacture. Package designs commonly fail the functionality test based on at least one of the above factors because packages are inherently intended to be functional. But it is possible to incorporate design features into an otherwise functional package that are purely for aesthetics, such as the shape of the iconic Coca-Cola bottle, which has been a registered trademark for decades. However, designs that are functional, such as bottle designs that offer efficient stacking or pouring methods, might be subject to refusal based on the test detailed above.

The USPTO may also refuse to register a package design if it lacks inherent distinctiveness. Several factors must be considered in evaluating a design’s distinctiveness, including whether it: 1) is a “common” basic shape or design; 2) is unique or unusual in a particular field; 3) is a mere refinement of a commonly-adopted and well-known form of ornamentation for a particular class of goods; or 4) is capable of creating a commercial impression distinct from the accompanying words.

A recent opinion issued by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in In re Mars is a good illustration of the application of the above factors to a package design – a pet food container in that case. The pet food package was an inverted cylindrical container. The registration in that case was denied based on the factors discussed above, but many package designs have been successfully registered as trademarks, so if your package has a unique element or design, you may wish to consider protecting it as a trademark.

Contact one of the attorneys at Strike & Techel if you have questions about trademark registrations.

Imbiblog is published for general informational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. Copyright © 2013 · All Rights Reserved ·

Effective January 1, 2013, California AB 2349 amended Business and Professions Code Section 25500.1 and repealed Section 25500.2. The two sections (25500.1 and 25500.2) were duplicative in that both permitted suppliers to list the names of two or more restaurants that carry their products.  Section 25500.2 included beer, wine and distilled spirits suppliers, while 25500.1 pertained to suppliers of wine and brandy. The newly amended 25500.1 covers suppliers of beer, wine and distilled spirits. In addition to consolidating the two laws, the newly amended Section 25500.1 removes the requirement that the listed on-sale retailers be restaurants – suppliers can now list bars and clubs that do not serve food. The new Section 25500.1 also clarifies that suppliers can list “other electronic media” with the retailers’ names, addresses and websites, which would include the retailers’ twitter accounts, Facebook pages, and other social media forums.

The revised Section 25500.1 parallels the existing and unchanged Section 25502.1, which pertains to supplier listings of off-sale retailers. Section 25502.1 has not been revised to include “other electronic media” as a means to list the retailers’ information, but we believe it is intended to parallel the on-sale provisions of Section 25500.1. Note that the on-sale and off-sale statutes both include restrictions, e.g., the listings may not include retail prices; the supplier must list at least two unaffiliated retailers; and the retailer may not pay for the listing.

For information about these statutes or any other California trade practices questions, please contact any of the attorneys at Strike and Techel.

Imbiblog is published for general informational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. Copyright © 2013 · All Rights Reserved ·

On March 11^th, Senator Mark Leno introduced Senate Bill 635 which would allow California businesses to serve alcohol between the hours of 2 and 4 am. These extended hours would apply solely to on-sale premises such as restaurants, entertainment venues and nightclubs, and not to off-sale premises such as liquor stores or gas stations. SB 635 would allow California cities to join the ranks of other major U.S. cities such as New York City, Las Vegas, Chicago, Miami and Washington D.C., as well as numerous international cities and countries which permit late or continuous beverage service. At least nine other states have similar legislation in place.

Supporters of the bill argue the extended hours will increase tourism, tax revenue and jobs, and provide relief to law enforcement agencies and public transportation systems currently burdened by uniform closing times. Critics cite noise and various other public safety concerns that may arise from an additional two hours of boozing.

If SB 635 passes, cities and counties that want to extend their hours will be required to apply to the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (“ABC”) for approval.  Under the bill, the ABC is required to conduct a “thorough investigation into whether the additional hours would serve the public convenience or necessity.” Similar to the process of obtaining an alcoholic beverage license, the city or county would be required to notify residents, law enforcement agencies and other interested parties of their application. Interested parties would then have a 30-day period from the date of notice to file protests. The ABC would reject protests it deems unreasonable.  For those with protests deemed acceptable, the ABC would provide an opportunity to address their concerns in a hearing.

Even if the bill becomes law, our experience with “public convenience or necessity” determinations and neighbor protests tends to suggest an uphill battle for many licensees who would like to obtain a 4 a.m. closing time. We will see how the bill fairs in policy committee hearings this spring.

Imbiblog is published for general informational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. Copyright © 2013 · All Rights Reserved ·

On February 7, 2013 the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (“TABC”) issued an advisory, MPA053, entitled Promotional Activity Prearrangement/Preannouncement for Beer, which announces an amendment to 16 Tex. Admin. Code § 45.113, allowing beer manufacturers and distributors to prearrange and preannounce promotions at all on and off premise retail locations. Existing law (Tex. Alco. Bev. Code Ann. § 102.07(g)) permits distilled spirits and wine manufacturers and wholesalers to prearrange and preannounce promotional activities at retail premises (see MPB023), but beer manufacturers and wholesalers were excluded. Bar spending, sampling, appearances by agents, etc., could not be prearranged with the retailer or preannounced to consumers for beer; they had to be spontaneous. With this amendment, beer manufacturers and distributors are put on equal footing with spirits and wine suppliers and will be allowed to preannounce, or advertise, their promotional activities to consumers by means of email, TV, print, and digital media. These announcements may include event details, such as the date, time and location of the event. The amendment will enable beer manufacturers and distributors to more effectively prearrange their promotional activities.

The attorneys at Strike & Techel are available to answer questions about promotions and other industry trade practices.

Imbiblog is published for general informational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. Copyright © 2013 · All Rights Reserved ·