## Facts

- Coors Brewing Company sold Coors Light and used “high gravity brewing,” producing a concentrated brew that exceeded beer’s statutory alcohol limit until blended with water.
- Most Coors Light was brewed, blended, and bottled in Golden, Colorado, but a substantial portion sold in the Northeast was blended and bottled in Virginia after shipment of the high-gravity brew by rail.
- Anheuser-Busch produced Natural Light using a similar process; a noted difference was that Natural Light was pasteurized while Coors Light was produced at low temperatures.
- Anheuser-Busch ran television and radio ads depicting Coors shipping “Rockies concentrate” to Virginia where “local water” diluted it, while Natural Light left Anheuser-Busch breweries “fresh and ready to drink.”
- Coors alleged the ads falsely disparaged Coors Light by implying it was less fresh or inferior because it was shipped as concentrate and diluted with local water.
- Coors relied on consumer survey evidence in which open-ended recall questions yielded few statements about differing manufacture; about 32% reported a message that Coors was diluted or watered down; and 67% answered, in response to a closed-ended question, that the beers were made differently.
- Coors sued under Lanham Act § 43(a), New York common-law unfair competition, and N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law §§ 349–350, seeking a preliminary injunction to stop the campaign.

## Issues

1. Whether Coors showed a likelihood of success under Lanham Act § 43(a) by proving the ads were literally false or, though literally true, implicitly false or misleading about Coors Light’s process, freshness, or quality.
2. Whether Coors showed a likelihood of success on parallel New York unfair competition and statutory deceptive-advertising claims.
3. Whether Coors satisfied the requirements for preliminary injunctive relief, including irreparable harm and the requisite merits showing.

## Decision

- The court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction.
- The court found no showing of literal falsity because it was substantially true that Coors shipped high-gravity brew to Virginia where water was added before bottling.
- The court found Coors did not prove the ads conveyed a materially misleading message to a substantial portion of consumers; the survey’s open-ended responses provided little support for a negative “quality” takeaway, and the closed-ended question was given less weight.
- The court concluded Coors did not adequately show materiality (likely effect on purchasing decisions) or irreparable harm on the record presented.
- Because Coors did not show likely success on the Lanham Act claim, the court likewise declined preliminary relief on the related state-law theories.

## Legal Principles

- A Lanham Act false-advertising plaintiff may proceed by proving either (a) literal falsity or (b) that a literally true message is nevertheless misleading to consumers.
- When the challenged message is not literally false, extrinsic evidence of consumer perception (commonly survey evidence) is ordinarily required to show deception or likely confusion.
- Survey design affects probative value; open-ended “takeaway” questions generally carry more weight than leading, closed-ended questions.
- To obtain relief, any misleading implication must be material—likely to influence consumer purchasing decisions—rather than merely communicating accurate but unfavorable facts.
- Comparative advertising is permitted absent proof of false or deceptively misleading statements warranting injunctive relief.
- Preliminary injunctive relief requires a strong merits showing and equitable support, including a sufficient showing of harm that justifies immediate intervention.

## Conclusion

The court refused to halt Anheuser-Busch’s comparative ads because Coors did not demonstrate that the statements were literally false or that the campaign materially misled consumers about Coors Light’s freshness or quality, and the evidentiary record—especially the survey proof—did not justify preliminary injunctive relief.


Coors Brewing Co. v. Anheuser-Busch Cos., 802 F. Supp. 965 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)