Dueling Stags: Judge Hands Losses To Both Ste. Michelle & Treasury, Then Spanks Their Lawyers

 

 

EDITOR’S NOTE: Both combatants in this legal saga issued highly posturing comments on the judge’s decision. Wine Industry Insight has chosen not to include the statements because neither added useful information to this article.

 

---

 

Federal District Judge Richard Seeborg handed a loss to each side of the dueling stags legal drama, then spanked their lawyers for “gamesmanship.” The dueling stags are Ste. Michelle Wine Estates (SMWE) which owns “Stag’s Leap” and Treasury Wine Estates (TWE) which owns “Stags’ Leap.”

 

“The gamesmanship accusations the parties are trading are not useful,” said Seeborg. “At this juncture, the two cases have been related, and will proceed in tandem. Arguments as to whether there should be two cases or only one put form over substance and do not advance the ultimate resolution of the litigation.”

The First Move:

The complicated legal drama began in October 2016 when SMWE sued  TWE for trademark and other violations over a stag-related Certificate of Label Approval that had not yet been used in commerce. See previous coverage links below along with court documents.

The Second Move:

Treasury moved to dismiss, then,

The Third Move:

Treasury filed a second lawsuit seeking declaratory judgment that its label did not infringe Ste. Michelle’s.

 

Following that, a judge largely agreed with Treasury on the absence of label violations then dismissed Ste. Michelle’s original complaint but left the door open for SMWE to file an amended complaint.

The Fourth Move:

Ste. Michelle subsequently filed the amended complaint.

The Fifth Move:

Treasury asked the court to dismiss Ste. Michelle’s amended complaint.

The Sixth Move:

Ste. Michelle filed to have Treasury’s declaratory relief request dismissed.

 

Basically, the maneuvering in two different courts was eventually assigned to one judge (Seeborg).

The Judge Moves

On January 27, Seeborg, in addition to schooling the posturing parties:

• Denied Ste. Michelle’s  motion to dismiss Treasury’s declaratory relief request, and

• Denied Treasury’s motion to dismiss Ste. Michelle’s amended complaint.

The judge’s ruling leaves Treasury’s declaratory relief on the docket to be dealt with after the court hears Ste. Michelle’s amended complaint, followed by Treasury’s counterclaim.

Both parties have 15 days to reply to the court.

The Forgotten Move?

Both parties seem to have forgotten that they agreed to mediation back in November 2016.

The Secret PR Move?

With both sides working so hard to spin their various moves, the legal battle seems a pretext for promotion.

 

That continues to bolster the assertions of those who insist that the offending stag label — which was never actually used — was intended as a clever sucker punch by Treasury. Regardless, the judge has expressed his impatience at both parties.

Previous Wine Industry Insight coverage

• Treasury Wine strikes back at Ste. Michelle, amps up rhetoric – hints at stag vs stag vs stag collusion

• Stag battle: Ste. Michelle asks court to dismiss Treasury Wine declarative relief request

• Stag duel continues: Ste Michelle files amended stag complaint against Treasury Wine

• Federal judge dismisses Ste. Michelle versus Treasury Wine complaint, controversy heads for mediation

• Ste. Michelle Vs Treasury Wine: Corporate Stags Behaving Badly Or A Brilliantly Executed Sucker Punch?

Full court filings for Wine Executive News Premium subscribers

• Dueling Stags Judge Hands Both Sides a Loss Then Spanks Lawyers

• TWE motion to dismiss SMWE amended complaint

• TWE opposition to SMWE motion to dismiss TWE relief request