(Courtesy Stone Brewing)

On February 12, 2018 Stone Brewing announced that it was filing a lawsuit against one of the world’s largest beer conglomerates, MillerCoors, (now Molson Coors).

The suit alleged that MillerCoors was trying to rebrand its Colorado Rockies-themed “Keystone” beer as “STONE.”  The craft beer pioneer felt that it has no choice but to combat MillerCoors’ aggressive marketing moves, which abandon Keystone’s own heritage with deliberately confusing rebranding.

And on March 31, 2020 the San Diego federal court ruled in favor of Stone Brewing and awarded the company $56 million settlement which while far below the $216 Million Stone was asking for was asking for was still a big win for the craft brewer.

Stone Brewing Co-Founder Greg Koch, who left the company after it was sold to Sapporo in 2022, said at the time, “This is a historic day for Stone Brewing, and for the craft beer industry. Molson Coors threatened our heritage, but we stood up to that threat.

“They will put the ‘Key’ back in ‘Keystone’ ending their hostile 4-year co-op of the Stone name. Cheers to our legions of fans, friends and supporters who believe in the good that craft beer brings. This is your win too.”  

(Stone’s Greg Koch was pissed)

But Molson Coors wasn’t done and the Chicago-headquartered mega-brewer appealed the court’s decision.

But now the Drinks Business is reporting that on September 25, a San Diego court threw out its request for a retrial over trademark breach and that Molson Coors would have to fork over the $56 million settlement…

“Molson Coors had argued that Stone Brewing was unable to provide sufficient evidence to prove that consumers would be confused by the advertising. Following the decision, a spokesperson for Molson Coors said the company disagreed with the ruling and is ‘evaluating its options’, including a potential appeal. Molson Coors had previously suggested that the legal action was driven not by consumer confusion but by the fact that Stone Brewing owed a US$464 million debt to its private equity investors and needed a way of raising the cash.”

The court also rejected Molson Coors’ attempt to limit or overturn the damages payment.

###