JL Beverage v. Jim Beam Brands, No. 13-17382 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseJL Beverage filed suit against Jim Beam, alleging trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and unfair competition. The district court granted summary judgment for Jim Beam. In its summary judgment ruling, the district court used the standard applicable to preliminary injunctions instead of the standard for summary judgment rulings. Balancing the Sleekcraft factors as a whole, the court concluded that there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to the likelihood of consumer confusion. In this case, a reasonable fact-finder could conclude that: the JLV Mark has conceptual strength because the Mark’s salient feature, the color-coordinated lips, requires consumers to use their imagination to connect the color to the vodka flavor; the Lips Mark has conceptual strength because the lips have no commonly understood connection to the vodka product; Johnny Love Vodka does or does not have commercial strength (because a finding of either would support one of JL Beverage’s theories of confusion–reverse or forward); Johnny Love and Pucker Vodka are related flavored-liquor products sold to the same customers and distributors; the products are similar given their use of color-coordinated, puckered human lips as the focal point of their bottle designs; consumers purchasing the vodka products are not likely to exercise a high degree of care in distinguishing between the two; and Jim Beam was aware of JL Beverage’s trademarks prior to rolling out its Pucker Vodka line. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded.
Court Description: Trademark. The panel reversed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Jim Beam Brands Co. on claims of trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and unfair competition brought under the Lanham Act and Nevada state law by JL Beverage Co., which sells a competing line of flavored vodkas. The panel held that the district court erred in failing to place the burden of proof on Jim Beam Brands, the moving party; failing to view the evidence in the light most favorable to JL Beverage; and never analyzing whether a genuine dispute of material fact existed. The panel held that genuine issues of material fact remained as to the likelihood of consumer confusion between plaintiff’s registered “Johnny Love Vodka” and “JL Lips” marks and defendant’s “Pucker Vodka” logo. A reasonable fact-finder could conclude that plaintiffs’ marks had conceptual strength and either did or did not have commercial strength, that the parties’ products were related flavored- liquor products sold to the same customers and distributors, that the products were similar, that consumers purchasing the products were not likely to exercise a high degree of care in distinguishing between the two, and that Jim Beam was aware of JL Beverage’s trademarks prior to rolling out its Pucker JL BEVERAGE V. JIM BEAM BRANDS 3 Vodka line. The panel therefore reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.