A valuable incentive. More sales. Fewer purchases from a competitor. Those facts alone don’t establish unlawful exclusion. This Throwback Friday, we revisit Fedway and explain how suppliers and distributors can challenge unsupported trade practice claims by demanding evidence of a potential threat to retailer independence.
A termination notice does not finish the handoff. The KRIS–Winebow dispute highlights the contract terms brands and wholesalers need for continued sales, compensation, trademark use, and control of websites and social accounts. Includes sample language addressing performance during the transition and the transfer of digital brand assets.
How far can Congress go to collect the whiskey tax? The Supreme Court’s home distilling case brings together nineteenth-century moonshining, modern tax rates, and the limits of federal power.
A “100% agave” label tells buyers something about how their tequila was made. Does...
BuzzBallz acquired Big Sipz’s domains, redirected them to its own site, and later defeated the brand owner’s remaining counterclaims. The ruling explains why trademark timing, evidence of competitive harm, and proof supporting litigation claims matter to beverage manufacturers and wholesalers.
Beer Wolf looks like the eighties forgot to close their tab. The bandana. The...
A beer distribution agreement can promise a 30-day exit without supplying a lawful basis...
Retailer returns could turn Illinois’ November 12 hemp deadline into a warehouse problem for...
Coors’ Colorado dispute shows why beer distributors should negotiate termination payments, transfer deadlines, and interim relief together. Includes sample contract language preserving distributor remedies.
When we wrote about the Sixth Circuit’s cannabis contract decision last month, the concern...
“100% agave” and “handcrafted” help explain why a tequila costs more. They also give...
Ohio asked the Supreme Court to take up its fight over interstate wine shipping....
