In a recent turn of events, Ceveceria Modelo de Mexico is facing resistance in its attempts to appeal a verdict that a licensing contract for the Corona brand for “beer” also included “seltzer”. The contention has unfolded among a panel of Second Circuit judges.
The issue can be traced back to a case where a jury decided that the term ‘beer’ in the license contract included Corona Seltzer. The decision has been challenged by Modelo on the grounds that the literal definition of ‘beer’ does not encompass ‘seltzer’. However, their appeal is being met with a rather skeptical response from the judicial panel.
As it stands, CB Brand Strategies LLC, the opposing party, has urged the panel to uphold the jury’s broad interpretation which permits it to sell Corona seltzer in the United States. They made their case during the oral argument at the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
This case emphasizes the complex and often ambiguous nature of legal contractual language that can lead to such contentious debates, which a judge is reported to have dryly remarked as a dispute ‘only attorneys could argue’.
The ongoing dispute is a fitting representation of the myriad of challenges that could arise from a seemingly simple word definition in the context of legal licensure and trademark rights.
For those seeking comprehensive details of the situation and its potential ramifications on the beverage and law industry, you are invited to explore the details from the original coverage here.