Oasis Texas Brewing Company, an Austin, TX brewery, settled a trademark dispute with New Belgium Brewing, makers of the well known Fat Tire beer. According to the Houston Chronicle, the settlement allows Oasis to use the term “Slow Ride” on a beer within the state of Texas only, but may not call the same beer “Slow Ride” outside of Texas. The dispute arose in 2014, when Oasis began selling Slow Ride pale ale. However, New Belgium filed for an intent to use trademark application, planning to sell a beer with the same name. According to the Houston Chronicle, “late in 2014, New Belgium notified Oasis Texas that it had the trademark. Oasis fired back with a cease and desist letter asserting ‘common law’ rights to the Slow Ride name because its beer was available for sale days before New Belgium’s application.” The common law right Oasis claimed were related to its actual use of the mark in commerce within Texas, meaning it was allegedly the first to use the Slow Ride name in the marketplace even though New Belgium was the first to file a trademark application (under the 1B filing basis for intent to use). In short, it is not enough to simply think of a term first or register the term first, you must also actually use the term (that is, the trademark) “in commerce.” For basic information, see the USPTO website basic fact presentation here. Because Oasis didn’t file for federal trademark registration, the Chronicle noted that…

The TTB recently issued a 2016-1 Ruling “in response to complaints from a number of industry members who expressed concerns over potential abuse of the narrow Tied-House exception provided for in 27 CFR 6.99(b), which removes only the act of providing a recommended shelf plan or shelf schematic from the prohibited means to induce enumerated in 27 U.S.C. 205(b)(3).” As a result of these complaints, TTB investigated and found that “there is a misunderstanding about what activities are permitted under the § 6.99(b) exception. Ruling 2016-1 is an attempt to clarify what is and is not exempted under the exception. Now, the TTB has issued FAQs that seek to further clarify its 2016-1 Ruling. See a few examples below but see the FAQs for for more. Q: Does TTB Ruling 2016-1 prohibit industry members from acting as “category captains” or from engaging in “category management” activities? A: The terms “category management” and “category captain” are not defined in the TTB regulations and can mean different things to different industry members. TTB Ruling 2016-1 reminds the industry what is exempted by 27 CFR 6.99(b); specifically, providing a recommended shelf plan or shelf schematic, and nothing further. TTB considers additional services or things of value not specifically exempted by a subpart D exception, whether or not referenced as “category management services,” as inducements under 27 CFR 6.41 of the TTB regulations. Many of the common services given under the term “category management/category captain” may be considered things of value and, as such,…