Anheuser-Busch Counsel Advocates a Softer Approach to Cease and Desist Letters
Companies are taking a polite, and even funny, approach to cease and desist. And sometimes, that might be the smartest way to go.
January 23, 2018 at 04:23 PM
4 minute read
Anheuser-Busch brewery in St. Louis, Missouri. Photo credit: PhilipR/Shutterstock.com
Not long after Anheuser-Busch InBev rolled out Bud Light ads featuring the now popular “Dilly Dilly” catchphrase, a Minneapolis pub began selling a “Dilly Dilly” IPA. Rather than send a typical cease and desist letter, the brewing company instead sent a town crier to deliver a more lighthearted request to keep use of the phrase to a limited run.
AB InBev's move follows a handful of recent so-called “nice” cease and desist letters. In August 2017, Netflix Inc. counsel Bryce Coughlin sent a note to an unauthorized “Stranger Things” pop-up bar, asking that the Chicago establishment restrict the run of the pop-up to the planned six weeks. “[P]lease don't make us call your mom,” Coughlin wrote.
TGI Fridays counsel took a similar approach in October of last year, and in 2012, Jack Daniel's tested a softer tone with a letter to an author whose book cover resembled one of the whiskey maker's labels.
Why does a polite, and even funny, approach to a cease and desist letter sometimes make sense? At a recent event hosted by the New York City Bar Association, Jeremy Roe, associate general counsel and head of legal for The High End, a division of AB InBev, said this tactic can not only create goodwill in the public eye, but may also lead to the desired response from alleged infringers.
The reality for in-house counsel is that these letters are often made public, and so a lighter tone when the scenario allows for it is seen by the business as an “opportunity to kind of create an extension of their brand message,” Roe said on a panel at the Jan. 19 event. And when it came to the Modist Brewing Co.'s use of “Dilly Dilly,” Roe said that because it was for a limited time, it wasn't seen as much of a risk. And it worked out— AB InBev's response led to an agreement from Modist to not use the phrase after a limited run and it was also perceived as an “olive branch,” according to Roe.
But the impact has reached beyond just the goodwill created with the Minnesota pub, Roe said. “To see us do this, it's been a surprise to a lot of people in the industry that we took this approach,” Roe explained. “So it had lasting effects beyond just this one situation. I think people may see us in a different light, so it's really worked out well for us.”
That's not to say that formal cease and desist letters aren't still a tool utilized by AB InBev's legal team. But in this particular scenario, a lighter approach made sense and was well-received, Roe said.
In general, when the company is dealing with responses to possible infringement or allegations of infringement, Roe's first move is often to coordinate with the PR team.
“We've had instances where letters that we've sent and/or letters that have been sent to us get published on social media, get a lot of attention, and then how we respond to that gets even more attention or even less attention, depending on how we address it,” he said. If responses are treated as matters that don't have to be discussed outside the legal department, he noted that the PR team and execs will understandably care when the company's name shows up in the news and they've heard nothing about the issue.
At the end of the day, “it's about reputation, making sure that the way that we respond is appropriate,” Roe said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBen & Jerry’s Accuses Corporate Parent of ‘Silencing’ Support for Palestinian Rights
3 minute readKing Kullen—the Nation's First Supermarket—Hires Outside Counsel as GC
Kraft Heinz Hires GC of Industrial Manufacturer as Legal Chief
CLO of Yum Brands Exiting After 17 Years With Fast-Food Giant
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250