更新：2020年12月16日：尽管法院裁定在诉讼审理期间不推迟推迟Vizzy的发射，但初审法官裁定莫尔森·库尔斯（Molson Coors）驳回该动议。The case brought by Future Proof Beverages will go forward to trial, but no date has been set.
"We have already seen so much confusion in the market, and we are quite confident in winning our lawsuit to protect our brand," Justin Fenchel, co-founder and CEO of Future Proof,在书面声明中说。"Molson Coors has proven time and time again they will use their size and resources against small businesses and we refuse to let that happen to us."
莫尔森·库尔斯（Molson Coors）在通过电子邮件发送给食品潜水的一份声明中说，该裁决并没有影响整个案件。
声明说：“未来的证明继续生活在幻想土地上，而不是现实。”"The courts have ruled in our favor multiple times in this case, and they have repeatedly denied Future Proof’s request for a preliminary injunction. This ruling simply means the case will proceed, and we are very confident we will prevail because Future Proof’s belief that it is entitled to market exclusivity on fizzy-themed beverage names is completely misguided."
潜水简介:
- 根据上周在德克萨斯州美国地方法院提起的诉讼，未来的证明品牌是Brizzy Hard Seltzer的母公司，指责Molson Coors为Molson即将推出的Hard Seltzer发射Vizzy窃取其产品名称。Upstart希望法院禁止Molson Coors称其新产品Vizzy，并判给其造成混乱造成的任何损害。
- The lawsuit states Molson Coors was fully aware of Future Proof's Brizzy, which was created by the company and a renowned mixologist in 2018. Brizzy launched with five flavors last September, and the lawsuit estimates sales will eclipse $2 million in its first year.
- "现在，让我们清楚地说，我们全都在欢迎竞争中；毕竟，竞争的快感刺激了我们蓬勃发展的创新。”blog post on its corporate website。“但是，我们以在传统深入的空间中脱颖而出和领导思想而感到自豪。令我们惊讶的是，莫尔森·库尔斯（Molson Coors）承认审查了我们的网站，甚至承认我们的灰熊产品首先是市场，但决定使用混乱的 -无论如何，类似的名字Vizzy。莫尔森·库尔斯（Molson Coors）别无选择，可以反对他们侵犯熊熊标志的计划。”
潜水见解：
As it becomes clear that hard seltzer is the best place to find growth in the alcoholic beverage space today, everyone is jumping in. Competition is already tight, and this legal dispute shows how companies are working to gain even the slightest advantage over other companies in the space.
根据Food Dive获得的Beer Business Daily文章，未来的证明首先在上个月向莫尔森·库尔斯（Molson Coors）停止和停止信件。未来的证明联合创始人贾斯汀·富伦（Justin Fenchel）表示，宣布Vizzy的消息是在Brizzy正式发布的两个月内。该公司在停止和终止信中写道，它认为莫尔森·库尔斯（Molson Coors）可能已经尽早获得了品牌名称，味觉和包装设计的果果。
In the trade newsletter, Molson Coors responded it was able to get its name trademarked, after all, and has packaging that is "markedly different and has differentiated ingredients. We don't believe consumers will be confused." The beer giant also said when it was filing for the trademark on Vizzy, "Brizzy had a static web site that looked as though it was only in very limited distribution."
虽然未来的证明似乎是酒精饮料领域中的小玩家，但它的体重和影响力很大。2014年，创始人宣传他们的第一次饮料, the portable, low-calorie and 11.1% ABV wine cocktail BeatBox on Shark Tank, getting a$1 million investmentfrom Mark Cuban. The well-known investor hascontinued to promote the companyfollowing the initial investment.
然而，在争端的另一侧，米尔库尔（Brewer）的美国业务部门Millercoors是putting a lot behind Vizzy。The hard seltzer includes acerola cherries, a superfruit that features 30 times more vitamin C than oranges. Brizzy isn't a functional beverage. It is marketed more as a craft hard seltzer targeted at foodies.
有了很多危险，未来的证据认为，两种类似命名的产品将混淆消费者。类似的案件以前在法庭上已经成功。Cytosport现在由Pepsico拥有，在2008年起起诉重要药物，认为Vital的蛋白质饮料（当时称为肌肉力量）与Cytosport的肌肉牛奶太相似。法院裁定CytoSport's favor, saying that consumers are likely to be confused because both products are inexpensive and shoppers would be less likely to deliberate on which one to buy.
Disputes similar to this one are currently pending in courts, and they may have an impact on what happens in the Molson Coors lawsuit. The sports drink division of Vital Pharmaceuticals, which makes Bang Energy,起诉怪物饮料last March. Vital Sport says Monster stole its branding for its Reign energy drink, which has no sugar or calories. The can design, colors and flavor lineup are nearly identical, the lawsuit says. According to a docket report, settlement discussions are currently on the table.
