Magic Hat and West Sixth Brewing Resolve Trademark Dispute

Top left: West Sixth Brewing logo. Top right: Magic Hat #9 logo. Below: an inverted West Sixth Brewing logo beside the Magic Hat #9 logo

The final chapter in a month-long trademark saga between Magic Hat Brewing and West Sixth Brewing Company — one that that played out across Twitter and Facebook in May — has been written.

What began as a blog post calling for a consumer boycott of Magic Hat products, after the Vt-based craft brewing company filed a lawsuit against Lexington, Ky-based West Sixth Brewing Company alleging that trademark infringement concerning designs and trade dress associated with the Magic Hat #9 brand created consumer confusion, quickly turned into a public he said/she debate.

Apparently the recent, mediated closed door conversations went amicably and it now appears that the two parties have resolved any trademark issues that were addressed in May 16 Magic Hat court filing.

A public statement sent to said both companies plan to work on assuring that consumers perceive each brand as distinct. A quick glance at the West Sixth Facebook page and website reveals an updated company logo. The brewery has removed the ‘dingbat’ image that resembled a similar insignia which appears on the Magic Hat #9 label. West Sixth also removed the word ‘company’ from the outer edge of its circular logo.

But don’t expect to read any more eyebrowing-raising blog posts from West Sixth Brewing. Both companies have agreed to refrain from any additional public comments about the resolved dispute.

The updated West Sixth Brewing logo

Phew. The release is below:

The parties have a mutual interest in assuring that consumers perceive their products as distinct.

The parties have mutually resolved the issues addressed in the lawsuit in a manner that eliminates potential confusion about product origin and resolves the lawsuit in a mutually acceptable way.

To the extent West Sixth in any way represented that Magic Hat filed a frivolous lawsuit, that Magic Hat initiated litigation improperly, that Magic Hat was unresponsive in negotiating a resolution, that Cerveceria Costa Rica was itself involved in the dispute or its resolution, that Magic Hat claimed ownership of the numeral 6, that Magic Hat sued West Sixth after West Sixth had already acceded to its demands, that Magic Hat has no Vermont presence, or that Magic Hat sought to recover for or enjoin West Sixth from truthful public statements, such representations are retracted. West Sixth regrets that it in any manner communicated any inaccuracies, and hereby corrects those errors.

Both Magic Hat and West Sixth have agreed that this joint statement will be the last public communication from either side regarding the resolved dispute.

Each wishes the other good fortune and continued success.