Flying Dog Brewery (Frederick, MD) has filed a lawsuit against the Michigan Liquor Control Commission the U.S. District Court in Michigan's Western District. The suit involves the commission's November 2009 decision to deny an application by the brewery to sell its 'Raging Bitch' beer in Michigan due to the allegedly provocative nature of the label.
Flying Dog argues that the commission's decision is unconstitutional and violates the brewery's first amendment rights to free speech. The brewery is asking the court to mandate the issuance of a sales license in Michigan for Raging Bitch and is seeking unspecified compensatory damages from the commissioners as well as attorney fees.
In their complaint, the plaintiffs state, "[b]eer bottles should be regulated not by the expression of their labels, but by the character of their content...[r]egrettably, the Michigan Liquor Control Commission and its members have taken it upon themselves to control not merely alcoholic beverages, but speech as well."
The commission is given the authority by the Michigan legislature to control all alcoholic beverage traffic in the state and to reject any beer label submitted for registration that is deemed to promote racism, sexism, intemperance or intoxication, or to be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the general public.
Flying Dog applied for a license to sell Raging Bitch, the company’s 20th anniversary commemorative beer, in the state of Michigan in September 2009. According to the suit, the commission looked at the proposed label by Flying Dog and "did not feel it was appropriate for distribution and sale in Michigan."
The Raging Bitch label's artwork was designed by British artist Ralph Steadman, who works with Flying Dog to produce illustrations for the brewery's corporate images. The Raging Bitch label depicts drawing of a female dog and reads, in part:
"Two inflammatory words ... one wild drink. Nectar imprisoned in a bottle. Let it out. It is cruel to keep a wild animal locked up. Uncap it. Release it ... stand back!! Wallow in its golden glow in a glass beneath a white foaming head. Remember, enjoying a RAGING BITCH, unleashed, untamed, unbridled—and in heat—is pure GONZO!! It has taken 20 years to get from there to here. Enjoy!" — Ralph Steadman
Flying Dog created Raging Bitch, a Belgian-Style India Pale Ale, to celebrate the brewery’s 20th anniversary in 2010. In addition to the controversy in Michigan, sales of the beer have also been banned in New Hampshire. (Another Flying Dog beer, Road Dog Porter, is banned in Texas.)
Flying Dog CEO Jim Caruso and Alan Gura (an attorney with Gura & Possessky (Alexandria, Va), the firm representing the brewery) announced the filing of the case at Crunchy’s, a craft beer pub near the Michigan State University campus in East Lansing.
[Ed Note: Yeah, it seems like I talk about beer a lot. It just seems like a fun topic.]
As the Dallas News reports:
Booze is generating a buzz for the State Fair of Texas, as fried-alcohol dishes made the list of top new fair foods announced Wednesday.
. . .
Fried Beer is a beer-filled pretzel-like dough pocket that's shaped like ravioli. Take a bite and the beer pours out.
What's even more interesting is that in the video that accompanies the article Mark Zable, the inventor, says that he patented the process of making the fried beer and trademarked the name "fried beer."
What struck me first: doesn't "fried beer" seem a little too descriptive, for trademark purposes, of the product (fried beer) to obtain a trademark on the principal register? Yup. According to filings with the PTO Zable's not even going for the principal register instead starting with the supplemental register in international class 30 "Frozen foods, namely, grain and bread based appetizers, hors d'oeuvres, and canapés." This application has not been assigned to an examining attorney yet.
Second, in the video he mentions "you know what, I didn't figure it out, my four and a half year old did." Meaning his four and a half year old figured out the secret process to fry the beer; "and it works." Since this application appears to be recently filed and not published, I can't tell who the listed inventors are but if the four year old is not listed, is there a § 102(f) problem? And if a four and a half year old came up with it, is there an obviousness problem?
So, if you're headed to the Texas State Fair be sure to try the fried beer™.
So, as I previously posted I gave a presentation on beer law to the Food Law course at Franklin Pierce. Today, I learned something new that I would have loved to include in my presentation had I known about it.
Now, I have not fully looked into this topic but I was reading a facebook note from an organic hop grower in New Hampshire (that I also learned just got TTB approval to start a brewery) Misty Mountain Farm (I can only assume it is based on the Led Zeppelin song "Misty Mountain Hop"). Apparently Hops are on the National List in 7 C.F.R. § 205.606:
Only the following nonorganically produced agricultural products may be used as ingredients in or on processed products labeled as “organic,” only in accordance with any restrictions specified in this section, and only when the product is not commercially available in organic form.
Hops appear as (k) on the list!
What is interesting is that Peak Organic was the brewery to file the petition back in 2007 asking for Hops inclusion on the list because it is not commercially available in organic form. In the petition Peak Organic said that they buy organic hops of a particular variety when available but organic hops of the particular varieties needed are not always available organically grown. The recommendation of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) Committee was to add it onto the list. And there it appears.
But, this past December, the American Organic Hop Grower Association (AOHGA) filed a petition to the NOSB asking for the removal of Hops from the list.
It seems that the number of styles and availability of organically grown hops has increased. I am all for removing hops from the national list because buyers of organic beer expect their beers to be brewed with organic hops as it is such a vital ingredient in beer.
In it's public comments the AOHGA points out:
The basic question to ask is this – how many varieties of hops must be available before variety is no longer a reason for organic hops to be considered commercially unavailable? If the criteria to remove an ingredient from the list is that every variety of the crop is commercially available, then hops (along with chia) are the only crops that have been held to such a high standard.
These are the only two crops on the 606 National List, everything else on the list is a derivative ingredient. Very few crops, if any, have every variety commercially available in an organic form.
If there are not enough varieties available organically today, then how many more are needed? Five, ten? What is the number?
Every year, new varieties are showing up in the non-organic marketplace. Are these required to be grown organically before hops can be removed from the list? If so, we are dealing with a moving goal post.
Certifiers will not make this determination of the number of varieties needed, and even if they did, it would lead to different standards across the industry. We need a consistent standard. This is a question only the NOSB can answer by addressing our petition.
It seems that with patented hops, that there could possibly always be a variety or two that are not grown organically—but should that matter? Guess I'll have to do more tasting research.