Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA872014
`01/19/2018
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`Filing date:
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding
`
`91236790
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's Name
`
`Filer's email
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Attachments
`
`Defendant
`Sumerian Brewing Co., LLC
`
`FREDERIC P VIMEUX
`GLOBALEXCOUNSEL
`4742 42ND AVE SW S168
`SEATTLE, WA 98116
`UNITED STATES
`Email: frederic@globalexcounsel.com
`
`Answer
`
`frederic vimeux
`
`frederic@globalexcounsel.com
`
`/fv/
`
`01/19/2018
`
`Brief in Opposition of Summary Judgment.draft5 jre edits.pdf(438190 bytes )
`beer demographic. Exhibit F.2 - Copy (2).pdf(2295927 bytes )
`Eruption dilution market samples_Exhibit C 1.pdf(81931 bytes )
`Hop Eruption dilution-Legacy Brewing Company-Exhibit C 3.pdf(65776 bytes )
`Untapp_search Mazama Hop Eruption_Exhibit D.pdf(48633 bytes )
`beer demographic. Exhibit F.2.pdf(2295927 bytes )
`Exhibit A. Declaration Mark IHRIG.pdf(702941 bytes )
`HopruptionSIP.pdf(71923 bytes )
`Eruption dilution market samples _Exhibit C 2.pdf(73810 bytes )
`
`

`

`
`
`Brief in Opposition to Summary Judgment
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`In re the Trademark Application of Sumerian Brewing Co., LLC
`
`Mazama Brewing Company, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
` Opposer,
`
`
`
`
`
` v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Sumerian Brewing Co., LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Applicant.
`
`
`
`
`Mark: HOPRUPTION DOUBLE IPA
`Application Serial No. 87327934
`Opposition No 91236790
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`APPLICANT SUMERIAN’S OPPOSITION TO OPPOSER MAZAMA’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Opposer, Mazama Brewing, LLC. (“Opposer” and “”Mazama”), seeks Summary Judgment that
`
`Applicant Sumerian Brewing Co., LLC’s (“Sumerian”) applied-for mark “HOPRUPTION” (Serial No.
`
`87327934) is confusingly similar to Mazama’s claimed common law trademark HOP ERUPTION in use
`
`in Oregon since May 2013, south and southeastern Washington sporadically in 2014, 2015 and 2016, and
`
`in a handful of stores and taprooms in the greater Seattle area in 2016 and 2017 at the same time Sumerian
`
`was selling its own HOPRUPTION beer product.
`
`In support of this Opposition to Mazama’s Motion, Sumerian relies on and fully incorporates
`
`herein: (1) Sumerian’s Memorandum of Law in Support of its Opposition for Mazama’s Motion for
`
`Summary Judgment; and (2) the Affidavit of Mark Ihrig. See Exhibit A.
`
`A. The Standard for Summary Judgment
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`
`Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, adopted as TBMP § 528, allows for summary
`
`judgment when there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute. Summary judgment is inappropriate
`
`if a dispute about a material fact is genuine, “that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could
`
`

`

`return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
`
`Summary judgment will be granted “only where the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of
`
`law, where it is quite clear what the truth is, . . . [and where] no genuine issue remains for trial . . . [for] the
`
`purpose of the rule is not to cut litigants off from the right of trial . . . if they really have issues to try.”
`
`Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting Sys., Inc., 368 U.S. 464,467 (1962) (quoting Sartor v. Arkansas Natural
`
`Gas Corp., 321 U.S. 620, 627 (1944)).
`
`To prevail on its Motion, Mazama must prove that there are no disputed facts and that there is an
`
`“absence of evidence to support the non-moving party’s case.” TBMP § 528.01. “The burden in a motion
`
`for summary judgment is on the moving party to establish prima facie that there is not genuine issue of
`
`material fact . . .” Shalom Children’s Wear Inc. v. ln-Wear A/S, 26 USPQ2d 1516, 1518 (TTAB 1993), and
`
`“all inferences to be drawn from the undisputed facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the
`
`nonmoving party. . .” Moreover, “[a]ll doubts as to whether or not particular factual issues are genuinely in
`
`dispute must be resolved against the moving party.” Flately v. Trump, 11 USPQ2d 1284, 1287 (TTAB
`
`1989).
`
`When all inferences are drawn in favor in Sumerian, this Opposition presents genuine issues of
`
`material fact which compel denial of Mazama’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
`
`B. Statement of Disputed Factual Issues
`
`The following unresolved issues of material fact preclude Summary Judgment:
`
`1.
`
`Whether Mazama’’s Hop Eruption have gained common law trademark rights to supersede
`
`Sumerian’s right in registering its mark.
`
`2.
`
`Whether there is a likelihood of confusion in view of the dissimilarity of the marks, the
`
`weakness of Mazama’s mark, the differences in the beer style, the sophistication of the
`
`consumers, and other factors distinguishing the parties programs.
`
`C. The Marks are Not Likely to Be Confused
`
`An examination of the factors set forth in In re E.l. DuPont DeNemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357
`
`(CCPA 1973) reveals numerous unresolved issues of material fact, precluding Summary Judgment in
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Mazama’s favor. Indeed, a cursory review of the record indicates that the majority of the factors overall
`
`support Sumerian’s contention that confusion is unlikely. In light of the following DuPont analysis. "A
`
`claim of trademark infringement is established when the plaintiff proves that: (1) its mark is valid and
`
`legally protectable; (2) it owns the mark; and (3) the defendant's use of the mark to identify its goods or
`
`services is likely to create confusion concerning the origin of those goods or services." Commerce Nat'l Ins.
`
`Serv. Inc. v. Commerce Ins. Agency Inc., 55 USPQ2d 1098 (3rd Cir. 2000) (Exh. 5), citing Opticians Ass'n
`
`of Am. v. Independent Opticians of Am., 920 F.2d 187, 192 (3rd Cir. 1990
`
`The likelihood of confusion analysis requires the evaluation of a number of factors including: (1) the degree
`
`of similarity between the owner's mark and the alleged infringing mark; (2) the strength of the owner's
`
`mark; (3) the price of the goods and other factors indicative of the care and attention expected of consumers
`
`when making a purchase; (4) the length of time defendant has used the mark without evidence of actual
`
`confusion arising; (5) the intent of the defendant in adopting the mark; (6) the evidence of actual confusion;
`
`(7) whether the goods, though not competing, are marketed through the same channels of trade and
`
`advertised through the same media; (8) the extent to which the targets of the parties' sales efforts are the
`
`same; (9) the relationship of the goods in the minds of the public because of the similarity of function; (10)
`
`other facts suggesting that the consuming public might expect the prior owner to expand into the defendant's
`
`market. 55 USPQ2d at 1103; accord, Scott Paper Co. v. Scott's Liquid Gold, Inc., 589 F.2d 1225 (3d Cir.
`
`1978).
`
`1.
`
`The Marks Differ in Appearance and Commercial Impression
`
`Sumerian will also reject the claim that customers would be likely to be confused between the two
`
`products; one is a Double IPA, Mazama’s is a Single IPA, the design, colors, name and marketing channels
`
`cannot drive the customer base these two products to be have any confusion as to what company these beers
`
`belong to.
`
`In Odom Tennessee Pride Sausage, Inc. v. FF Acquisition, the court found that visual distinctions
`
`alone created a dissimilarity between the parties’ respective marks great enough to create a differing
`
`commercial impression in the minds of consumers. This eliminated any genuine issue of material fact and
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`thwarted any claim of a likelihood of confusion in favor of opposer Odom. The court held that even just a
`
`single DuPont factor may be dispositive on likelihood of confusion (especially the “dissimilarity of marks”
`
`factor), over other relevant DuPont factors to the contrary. Odom's Tennessee Pride Sausage, Inc. v. FF
`
`Acquisition, L.L.C., 600 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
`
`(1) Visual distinctions between marks creating a different commercial impression can knock out a claim of
`
`likelihood of confusion. (2) More broadly, any one DuPont likelihood of confusion factor (dissimilarity of
`
`marks in particular) may be sufficient basis for finding no likelihood of confusion, to the exclusion of other
`
`relevant factors.
`
`a. Radically different marketing design and naming. A side by side comparison of the packaging will
`
`clearly put to light that there is no chance of likelihood of confusion. HOPRUPTION is clearly
`
`predominant within the packaging and clearly connected to the Sumerian brand. Sumerian’s
`
`logo/mark is a crouching warrior – the beer name is printed in distinctive cursive font below the
`
`prominent Sumerian brand logo: HOPRUPTION Double IPA. See Exhibit B. Mazama uses a font
`
`which appears to be calligraphy of the brand name on what appears to be a stained glass window:
`
`Hop Eruption and beneath it spells out India Pale Ale.
`
`b. Mazama’s mark for its claimed flagship beer is barely marketed through its website and nor even
`
`present at the time of the writing of this Brief. See http://www.mazamabrewing.com. A check
`
`earlier in the year and at the time of the writing of this Brief, showed that Hop Eruption India Pale
`
`Ale was not available at the brewery. Hop Eruption India Pale Ale is sold in what appear to be 22
`
`ounce bottles and on tap. In contrast to Sumerian, its sales in bottles, barrels or cans in Washington
`
`are unknown. The label for Mazama’s Hop Eruption India Pale Ale has the name of the beer in
`
`white writing and clearly and significantly has a picture of the State of Oregon on top right.
`
`c. Sumerian’s mark is marketed prominently on its website and social media and is available at bars,
`
`restaurants and sports venues. The award winning HOPRUPTION is predominantly sold in cans
`
`in multiple grocery stores throughout Western Washington (including QFC, Albertsons, and
`
`Haggen), at numerous Total Wine & More stores in Washington, and at the brewery for a total of
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`more than 250 stores across the State. See Exhibit A. The label for HOPRUPTION Double IPA
`
`features the Sumerian crouching warrior on a black or charcoal background with green surrounding
`
`the warrior and highlighting the beer name - and is clearly connected to the Sumerian brand. At the
`
`top, the label clearly states: Handcrafted in Woodinville, WA.
`
`d. Mazama’s product is presented as a Single IPA, any beer aficionado would recognize the difference
`
`without hesitation, in addition to clear above mentioned differentiators between Hop Eruption IPA
`
`and HOPRUPTION DOUBLE IPA; thus, a finding of likelihood of confusion or a claim that the
`
`product would be indistinguishable from each other to the average microbrew consumers outside
`
`the Corvallis, Oregon regional market is quite unrealistic. Contrary to the argument by Mazama
`
`that inclusion of the does not alter the visualy similarity, an IPA and a Double IPA are totally
`
`different beer styles. Typically an IPA has a much lower IBU usually 40 to 60 IBU and under 7.0%
`
`ABV while a Double IPA or Imperial IPA usually has 95 IBU or above and a 8.0+% or higher
`
`ABV range. Mazama further attempts to argue that not only do the disclaimed words leave less of
`
`an impression, consumers could naturally mistakenly presume that HOPRUPTION DOUBLE IPA
`
`is simply a differenty version of Hop Eruption, which is also an IPA and vice versa. However, that
`
`argument fails because not only are the two beers diametrically opposed beer styles – Double IPA
`
`having an extremely higher IBU content (higher bitterness) and a higher alcohol content than the
`
`single IPA – any of Mazama’s consumers would know the brewery and its products, and that
`
`Mazama’s Double IPA is named: Double Eruption Douple IPA and that beer is simply the different
`
`version of Hop Eruption. The conclusion is inescapable: the marks look nothing alike.
`
`e. A quick review of a Thesaurus demonstrates that the phonetic pronunciation of 'eruption' is 'ih-
`
`ruhp-shuh n' or an upside down and backwards 'e' at the beginning. HOPRUPTION does not have
`
`the 'e' and when pronounced, sounds nothing like 'Eruption." thus, providing a radically different
`
`pronunciation. The word HOPRUPTION did not exist until Sumerian created the word. The names
`
`sound nothing alike and there is no aural similarity as alleged by Mazama. Beers may be ordered
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`orally, however, they are ordered when seen on a menu or tap handle. Craft beer consumers know
`
`the producer of a beer when they see a tap handle or visual appearance of marks.
`
`2.
`
`Mazama’s Mark is at best Weak
`
`Mazama’s products and brand are not a well-known through any of the markets claimed to be its
`
`markets. Again until recently nothing has been done to protect it, market it and to truly expend its reach
`
`out of the Corvallis, Oregon region where Sumerian has no intention to enter. The weakness of Mazama’s
`
`mark, also suggests that confusion is unlikely. Beer is made from hops. Countless beers contain the work
`
`"Hop" in the name before or after another word or words or joined with another word. For example: Hop
`
`Squeeze from Sierra Nevada Brewing Co. (Serial Number 87055362, No claim is made to the exclusive
`
`right to use “HOP” apart from the mark as shown), Hopsmack IPA from Cascade Lakes Brewery, Hop
`
`Central from POP Brewey (Serial Number 87657622), Hop Hearty Ale from New Glarus Brewing,
`
`“HOPSMACK!” from Topling Goliath Brewing Company. See Exhibit C.1 &2. There cannot be a common
`
`law trademark protection for the use of "Hop" in the name of a beer.
`
`At least 265 hop varsities exist for beer making: www.hopslist.com/hops. Lists of “Hop” in beer
`
`names: www.beeradvocate.com/community/threads/best-beer-name-with-the-word-hop.76332/ and also
`
`www.homebrewtalk.com/showthread.php?t=147204.
`
`The only “unique” word Mazama uses in its beer name is Eruption. However, a Federal trademark
`
`for Eruption in beer is owned by Worthy Brewing Co. (“Worthy”) - USPTO Serial Number 86458160 -
`
`with the disclaimer: No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “Imperial Red” apart from the mark as
`
`shown. Applicant is of the assumption that there was no opposition from Mazama when Worthy filed the
`
`trademark for Eruption Imperial Red Ale on November 18, 2014 - first use on or about October 4, 2013.
`
`Mazama claims use of Hop Eruption India Pale Ale at least as early as May 2013 in Oregon, the same state
`
`where Worthy is located and sells beer.
`
`Mazama’s Hop Eruption IPA may have developed some, yet very limited rights to its actual product
`
`name Hop Eruption IPA within its geographical territory of Corvallis, Oregon where it remained until it
`
`sold in a small geographic areas in southern Washington state – close to the state borders of Washington
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`and Oregon – first Richland, WA (population 54,989 in 2016) on April 22, 2014 and Ridgefield, WA
`
`(population 7,066 in 2016) on September 3, 2014, then February 26, 2015, April 2, 2015, June 5, 2015 and
`
`November 6, 2015. It wasn’t until March 10, 2016 according to the Opposer’s declaration, that Mazama
`
`sold two ½ bbl of HOP ERUPTION in the Seattle area – one in Seattle and one in Bothell, a few mere few
`
`months prior to Sumerian launching its product throughout the State of Washington. Also of note according
`
`to Opposer’s declaration dates December 18, 2017, the last sale of Hop Eruption in Washington was on
`
`October 12, 2017. It is important to note that Opposer self-distributes and even if sales have occurred they
`
`are sporadic, inconsistent, and infrequent. Sumerian strongly rejects any further recognition on a federal
`
`level and in Washington State in particular and the possibility of the two product names to be
`
`"indistinguishable" as claimed by the Opposer.
`
`a. The limited marketing of the product by Mazama does not show any strong intent to protect the
`
`name of the product itself. The symbol “TM” tending to demonstrate that Mazama may be claiming
`
`common law or state law trademark rights is missing from all marketing publication or the product
`
`itself. Mazama only recently filed for Oregon state trademark protection as of November 28, 2017.
`
`The product is not predominantly displayed on Mazama's website where it would seem natural as
`
`nowadays for interested parties would look for product literature and information. Additionally,
`
`any rights Mazama may have been able to claim have been dramatically reduced by the number of
`
`exact or clearly similar names that have been either registered federally or doing business that
`
`clearly weakens Mazama’s prior rights claim.
`
`i.
`
`Worthy Brewing “Eruption Imperial Red Ale” - USPTO Serial Number 86458160
`
`with the disclaimer: No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “Imperial Red”
`
`apart from the mark as shown.
`
`ii.
`
`Legacy Brewing in Oceanside, CA - Hop Eruption (produced in 2014 to at least
`
`June 2015).
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`iii.
`
`Toppling Goliath Brewing Co. Pompeii. The picture on the label is an erupting
`
`volcano. An online article: 20 American craft breweries for an ultimate beer road
`
`trip - uses the hashtag “#hoperuption” when describing the beer.
`
`http://mashable.com/2016/04/08/national-beer-day-travel/#x4QYu6ldv8qH
`
`iv.
`
`Roak Brewing Co. Eruption. Found on Untappd (untapped.com) (added on
`
`September 2015): https://untappd.com/b/roak-brewing-co-eruption/1233448
`
`v.
`
`Dust Bowl Brewing Company. Eruption Ale. (added to Untappd in December
`
`2017): https://untappd.com/b/dust-bowl-brewing-company-eruption-ale/2413824
`
`vi.
`
`O’Boyd’s Mount Vesuvius Hop Eruption. Found on Untappd (untappd.com):
`
`https://untappd.com/b/o-boyds-mount-vesuvius-hop-eruption/1842805
`
`b. Sporadic presence in Washington State and across state borders. Mazama self distributes its
`
`products. Accordingly, it is rather difficult to quantify the reach of Mazama’s product within the
`
`borders of Washington State in particular; however, a quick tour of the social media resources
`
`available to beer connoisseurs and Opposer self-distributes sales within the state of Washington
`
`demonstrates a very limited sale volumes and sporadic presence within the Washington State
`
`market and recurring absence from the marketplace. As of the end of October 2017, Untappd shows
`
`that there are zero establishments within 75 miles of Woodinville, Washington that currently has
`
`Mazama Hop Eruption India Pale Ale. See Exhibit D. In contrast, Sumerian’s beers are distributed
`
`by the Odom Corporation in all major stores within the state such as Fred Meyer, QFC,
`
`Wholefoods, and Total Wine & More and has raised its volumes of productions and sales to
`
`approximately 250 stores in the State of Washington. See Exhibit A.
`
`c. Length of use of the product name: Mazama claims use of the product name to be around three
`
`years in its local geography around Corvallis, Oregon and barely a few months in the greater Seattle
`
`area of Washington prior to Sumerian’s use of HOPRUPTION in the state of Washington and yet
`
`fails to show a history of mark use by providing evidence that suggest consumers associate the
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`mark with Mazama, rather than its products. It is interesting to notice that the increased sales within
`
`a few locations outside Oregon is concurrent to the Sumerian’s sales of its product.
`
`Mazama’s minimal advertisement, promotion, digital presence, lack of efforts to protect and
`
`enforce its mark for its claimed flagship beer, and infrequent and sporadic sale across state lines indicate
`
`that at most the mark should be accorded only the slimmest scope of protection. Mazama does not sell
`
`currently sell the mark at its brewery.
`
`3.
`
`Sophistication of the Consumers Favors Sumerian
`
`Typical craft brew customers are mostly local connoisseurs and tend to choose beer on factors such
`
`as location of breweries with a strong preference for the locally made added to strong market recognition
`
`(awards and strong social media recognition which Sumerian’s products have received within the State of
`
`Washington – HOPRUPTION Double IPA won the Double Gold award at Sip Magazine’s sixth annual
`
`Best of the Northwest issue, October 2017) these customers base their decision on reading the labels on
`
`bottles or the package (XenoPsi), thus packaging is the most relevant way to relay your message to the
`
`customer and convert to a sale. https://www.craftbrewingbusiness.com/featured/understand-age-changing-
`
`demographics-craft-beer-drinkers-market-properly/. See Exhibit F. Industry Professionals support the
`
`findings in Odom.
`
`The marks are not at all similar and the commercial impressions are not identical. The public is
`
`not at all likely to be confused, deceived, or to erroneously assume Sumerian’s beer is the same as Mazama’s
`
`or that Sumerian is in some manner connected with, sponsored by a smaller brewery or affiliated with
`
`Mazama whatsoever. No consumer would look at a picture of a volcano with gray and black smoke and red
`
`flames coming out of the top and lava flowing or had previously flowed down the volcano with a large
`
`moose walking toward the volcano – and then look at a crouching Sumerian warrior and be confused,
`
`deceived, erroneously assume, or mistakenly believe that Sumerian’s HOPRUPTION was connected with,
`
`sponsored by or affiliated with Mazama in any capacity.
`
`Finally, as pointed out by Chuck “Heisenberg” Crabtree, head brewer at NoCoast Beer Co. in
`
`Oskaloosa, IA: “People want to feel connected to their beer personally and culturally. What that means for
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`craft brewers is they need to grow their customers locally and remain relevant and engaged.” There is an
`
`analogy to this regional trend overseas, says Hamilton of Lagunitas. “We seem to be moving towards a
`
`local focus in beer in the U.S. much like it’s always been in Europe,” she says. “A brewpub or two in every
`
`small town, a place where locals gather, where the community socializes.”
`
`http://beveragedynamics.com/2017/02/01/10-craft-beer-trends-in-2017/ therefore clearly confirming that
`
`the likelihood of confusion is rather impossible among Mazama’s Hop Eruption India Pale Ale customers
`
`and Sumerian’s HOPRUPTION Double IPA customers. See Exhibit F.
`
`4.
`
`Lack of Actual Confusion Over an Extended Period of Use
`
`Finally, there has been no evidence of actual confusion either in, Oregon, Washington State, or any
`
`other parts of the country. Sumerian has a wide range of followers via Facebook, twitter and Instagram in
`
`the thousands (a total of more than 8000 followers) and in no instance has any confusion between the two
`
`products been documented or reported. From the marketing venues, branding, packaging and market
`
`availability to the product itself can the two beers be confused.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`Sumerian’s Opposition to Mazama’s Motion for Summary Judgment has raised several contested
`
`issues of material fact. The marks are not similar in look, sound, or the meaning conveyed to consumers.
`
`The uncertainty surrounding Mazama’s common law rights, coupled with the unresolved facts relating to
`
`likelihood of confusion confirms that Mazama’s Motion for Summary Judgment should be denied.
`
`Applicant respectfully requests that Mazama’s Motion for Summary Judgment be denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`January 18, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/frederic p vimeux/
`
`Frederic P. Vimeux
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Applicant Sumerian Brewing Co., LLC:
`Frederic P. Vimeux
`GlobaLexCounsel,
`4742 42nd Ave SW, S168
`Phone: +1-206-227-1266
`Email: frederic@globalexcounsel.com
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`DECLARATION OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that I served the foregoing Applicant’s Answer to Notice if Opposition on:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`by the following indicated method or methods:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Douglas D. Hancock
`Hancock Hughey LLP
`P.O. Box 1208
`Sisters, OR 97759
`Phone: 541-549-4942
`Email: doug@hancockHughey.com
`
`
`
`by faxing full, true, and correct copies thereof to the attorney at the at the fax number shown above,
`which is the last-known fax number for the attorney’s office, and by mailing full, true, and correct
`copies therof in a sealed, first-class postage-prepaid envelope, addressed to the attorney as shown
`above, the last-known office address of the attorney, and deposited with the United States Postal
`Service, on the date set forth below.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`by mailing full, true, and correct copies therof in a sealed, first-class postage-prepaid envelope,
`addressed to the attorney as shown above, the last-known office address of the attorney, and deposited
`with the United States Postal Service, on the date set forth below.
`
`by transmitting full, true, and correct copies thereof by electronic means to the attorney at the
`attorney’s last-known e-mail address listed above on the date set forth below. Unless otherwise agreed
`to by the parties, the transmission was made in Word or PDF format.
`
`by sending full, true, and correct copies thereof via overnight courier in a sealed, prepaid envelope
`addressed to the attorney as shown above, the last-known office address of the attorney, on the date set
`forth below.
`
`
`Under the laws of the state of Washington, the undersigned hereby declares, under the penalty of
`
`perjury, that the foregoing statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
`
`
`Executed at Seattle, Washington, January 18, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/frederic p vimeux/
`____________________________________
`Frederic P. Vimeux
`
`12
`
`

`

`! " # + % &
`
`Advertise
`
`About Craft Brewing Business
`
`NEWS
`
`BUSINESS & MARKETING
`
`EQUIPMENT
`
`INGREDIENTS & SUPPLIES
`
`PACKAGING & DISTRIBUTION
`
`NEWSLETTER
`
`WEBINARS & WHITE PAPERS
`
`6969
`
`FEATURED · ·
`FEATURED
`
`PACKAGING & DISTRIBUTION
`PACKAGING & DISTRIBUTION
`
`Understand the age and changing
`Understand the age and changing
`demographics of craft beer drinkers (then
`demographics of craft beer drinkers (then
`market properly)
`market properly)
`
`by by Watermark DesignWatermark Design October 31, 2016
`
`October 31, 2016
`
`Like 11
`
`
`
`Tweet
`
`
`
`SEARCH THE SITE
`
`Enter your search...
`
`While the stereotypical image of a craft beer consumer is
`a bearded, plaid-laden white male, demographics are
`shifting to embrace a more diverse market where that
`may no longer necessarily be the case.
`
`Women are surging into a 32 percent share of the overall
`craft beer market (Nielsen Report), while women ages 21-
`34 compose a full 15 percent of overall craft drinking
`volume (Brewer’s Association). Women in founding,
`brewing and marketing positions in the beer community
`are also growing, as institutions such as Pink Boots
`Society promote inclusiveness in the industry.
`
`We'll send you weekly emails highlighting our best news and features.
`
`Sign Up for our Newsletter
`
`LATEST NEWS
`
`Improve your beer quality know-how
`during this week-long Oregon State
`course
`
`NY’s Sloop Brewing announces
`expansion, new brewery in East Fishkill
`thanks to $565,000 REDC grant
`
`The story behind a yeast-only beer,
`produced by a yeast strain that makes
`lactic acid
`
`South Dakota Governor aims to
`implement pro-craft laws, expand barrel
`cap, allow direct sales
`
`SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER
`
`Email address:
`
`First Name:
`
`Last Name:
`
`Job Title:
`
`Business Name:
`
`Sign up unsubscribe from list
`Sign up
`
`Hispanic influence in the craft beer market is also on the
`up and up. By 2019, “Hispanic beer spending is projected
`to grow 31 percent” (Univision, IHS Global Insights) and
`“43 percent of Hispanic consumers order craft beer in
`restaurants and bars at least once a month, and 31
`percent consume craft beer at home” (Technomic).
`
`However, the heftiest demographic influence is age — “58
`percent of craft beer drinkers are younger than 35”
`(XenoPsi). Among weekly craft drinkers, millennials try
`5.1 different brands per month [and] 15 percent try 10-
`plus brands per month. Brewers need to offer a broad
`variety of beers to keep the consumer within your
`portfolio” (Nielsen Getting Inside the Mind of the Craft
`Consumer).
`
`With the prevalence of such a younger, more tech-savvy
`age group, spending trends, brand loyalty and rationale
`for product purchase is also shifting. “74 percent of craft
`beer drinkers use mobile for a beer purchase before
`going to the store,” while 60.2 percent of craft beer
`purchasers who used mobile at the shelf used their
`smartphone to get information about a beer they were
`considering purchasing (XenoPsi). According to the
`Association of National Advertisers, “34 percent of
`millennial consumers respond positively to ‘When a
`brand uses social media, I like that brand more.’”
`(Barkley, SMG, BCG).
`
`And, while being active online is important to this group,
`an even higher percentage (62.8 percent) base their
`decision on reading the labels on bottles or the package
`(XenoPsi), thus your packaging is the most relevant way
`to relay your message to the customer and convert to a
`sale.
`
`With all of these factors in mind, being inclusive should
`be a part of your marketing plan as a means to reach out
`to the new generation of craft beer consumers.
`
`Written by the team at Watermark Design, a nationally-
`
`recognized branding and design studio. Watermark has
`
`been marrying design + craft beer since 2010, creating
`
`award-winning brands and package design for their
`
`clients’ breweries. Their love of beer + storytelling
`
`through design collide into some amazing collaborations.
`
`They are passionate about their craft, if you are
`
`passionate about yours, give them a call.
`
`Tags:
`
`branding
`
`demographics
`
`Watermark Design
`
`Older craft breweries reviving interest with
`new packaging
`
`Great Moments in Craft Beer: Boston brewers,
`tired of local distributors, start their own
`
`YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE...
`
`Copy cats: Learn how to
`avoid those not-so-
`obvious beer brand
`trademarks
`
`2017 craft beer
`branding trends: Clean,
`feminine, artsy and
`patterned top the list
`
`When and how to
`rebrand your brewery
`
`Craft beer branding
`strategies: How to build
`customer engagement,
`retention
`
`MOST POPULAR TODAY
`
`Green Flash Brewing cuts workforce,
`pulls out of 33 states, focusing on core
`markets
`
`New tax reform law allows immediate
`expensing of brewing equipment, pass-
`through entity deductions and lots more
`
`2017 draft beer analytics: Lagunitas had
`the most popular IPA, Busch Light grew
`500%, Sam Adams had top two wheats
`and lots more
`
`Watch the correct way to aseptically
`sample beer (i.e., not contaminate a
`sample) in this excellent video
`
`Craft Beer Marketing Idea of the Week:
`Canadian restaurant charges $15 for Bud
`Light to push more craft
`
`Make your own essential hop oils with
`this new distilling appliance from
`PicoBrew
`
`=
`
`RECENT FEATURES
`
`The story behind a yeast-
`only beer, produced by a
`yeast strain that makes
`lactic acid
`
`January 17, 2018
`
`On-premise drinking trends
`favor small producers,
`‘differentiated, flavorful’
`adult beverages, says
`Technomic
`
`January 16, 2018
`
`Hop intelligence: Craft
`professionals share advice
`from farming to contracting
`
`January 15, 2018
`
`Watch: Hi-Wire Brewing
`tells us about its growth
`strategy
`
`January 11, 2018
`
`Struggling barley farmers
`and how they deal with the
`idea of climate change
`
`January 10, 2018
`
`2017 draft beer analytics:
`Lagunitas had the most
`popular IPA, Busch Light
`grew 500%, Sam Adams had
`top two wheats and lots
`more
`
`January 4, 2018
`
`LEAVE A REPLY
`
`You must be logged in to post a comment.
`Connect with:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`69 COMMENTS
`
`Game Time – Pursuit of Hoppiness
`
`[…] I’m making the demographic of craft beer drinkers
`seem much smaller than it really is. In reality, 58% of
`craft beer drinkers are below the age of 35, and 15% of
`craft drinking volume is … Don’t get me wrong, these
`are very respectable numbers. But they seem much
`smaller when […]
`
`September 17, 2017 at 12:38 pm
`
`Here’s to the Working Man | Pacific Northwest Indie
`
`Made Beer - Iron Horse Brewery
`
`[…] craft beer drinker is likely to be interested in
`organic foods, get a liberal arts degree and use their
`phones to purchase beer before going into an actual
`store. […]
`
`May 31, 2017 at 3:43 pm
`
`cros_me
`
`RT @dzyngrl: “Women are surging into a 32% share of
`the overall craft beer market” #BeerGirlsRule
`https://t.co/nZvsgi37ru @SVCGirlsPintOut…
`
`November 4, 2016 at 2:35 pm
`
`meghayasaki
`
`Log in to Reply
`Log in to Reply
`
`RT @drinktec_2017: 62.8% craft beer drinkers base their
`purchase decision on bottle labels or #packaging.
`#Design
`https://t.co/9PyKEvaA6t h…
`
`November 3, 2016 at 7:03 pm
`
`TechnikPM
`
`Log