All Categories

Maryland Brewery DTC is Permanent... But It's Not What It Was in 2021

9/16/2026

Maryland's direct-to-consumer rules have finally settled. If you are still operating like it's 2021, you are out of compliance.

For three years, Maryland breweries operated under a temporary COVID-era law that let you deliver and ship beer directly to Maryland consumers. That law, ABCA §2-219, expired on June 30, 2024.

Its replacement, Chapter 918 (Senate Bill 1041), signed by Governor Moore on May 16, 2024, creates a permanent two-permit system. Here is what every Class 5, Class 7, and Class 8 brewery needs to know.

1. Delivery by Your Own Employee is Still Allowed... But You Need a New Permit

The Alcohol, Tobacco and Cannabis Commission (ATCC) made this clear in Bulletin ACB 24-003: you must cease all DTC activity under the old authorization and apply for a Direct Beer Delivery Permit.

What it allows: You can sell your own beer to a Maryland consumer online or by phone and deliver it with your own employee.

The rules:

You must hold an M-5, M-7, or M-8 brewery license plus a W-7 Limited Beer Wholesaler's License
Delivery driver must be a W-2 employee, 18 or older, and certified in an approved alcohol awareness program
No DoorDash, Uber Eats, or third-party delivery services. Employee only.
Product must be in commercially sealed containers, labeled with brewery name and consumer name/address, and marked "Contains Alcohol"
Customer must pay at time of order, be 21+, and be physically present with government ID. Both driver and recipient must sign the ATCC delivery form.
$200 annual fee, term runs July 1 - June 30
You must file quarterly delivery logs and pay excise and sales tax

This is now the only legal way to do local delivery.

2. Common Carrier Shipping is Back... But Different

This is the biggest point of confusion. In July 2024, ATCC told breweries to stop shipping via FedEx/UPS. Chapter 918 re-authorizes it, but only if you get a Direct Beer Shipper's Permit and use a permitted Common Carrier.
Key changes from the old law:

Affiliate aggregation: To qualify for a Nonresident Brewery Permit, you must produce less than 45,000 barrels annually alone or in combination with your affiliates. The old cap was 22,500. This was designed to keep macro-owned craft out of DTC shipping.

Household caps remain:

Beer: 3,456 ounces per address per calendar year (that's 288 12-oz cans)
Wine: 18 9-liter cases
Spirits: 24 750ml bottles

If you shipped under the temporary law, you already know the reporting burden. That burden is now permanent: quarterly reports to the Comptroller and ATCC, 3-year record retention, and carrier age-verification training.

3. Franchise Law: Why 2019 Still Matters

We still get calls about getting out of a distribution agreement. Maryland's beer franchise law was reformed for the first time since 1974 under HB1080/SB704 in 2019, and that reform still controls.

If you produce 20,000 barrels or less per year:
You are a "small brewer" under the law. You can terminate a wholesaler with 45 days' notice, no cause required. The buyout is fair market value, negotiated during that window, with binding arbitration if you cannot agree.

If you produce more than 20,000 barrels:
You are still under the old rules: 180 days' notice and you must show good cause.
That same 2019 compromise also raised self-distribution from 3,000 to 5,000 barrels for Class 7 breweries holding a Limited Beer Wholesaler License. That cap still stands.

What Should You Do This Quarter?

Check your permits. If your last ATCC letter says §2-219, it expired. You need a Direct Delivery Permit, a Direct Shipper Permit, or both.
Fix your SOPs. No third-party delivery, signed forms for every drop, and ID checks that will survive an ATCC audit.
Look at your distribution contracts. If you are nearing 20k barrels or have affiliate ownership, your exit rights may change.

Maryland finally gave breweries permanent DTC authority; something wineries have had since 2011. But it came with a compliance structure that looks much more like wine shipping than the loose COVID rules.

0 Comments

A Potential Win for the Cystic Fibrosis Community: What the Vertex-Lupin Patent Decision Could Mean for Access to Ivacaftor

8/26/2026

0 Comments

This article was also published on LinkedIn on August 26, 2026.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/potential-win-cystic-fibrosis-community

For people living with cystic fibrosis, access to the right treatment can depend on something as specific as the mutation in a single gene and something as practical as whether an insurer will cover the medicine without delay. A recent federal-court decision involving Vertex Pharmaceuticals and generic-drug maker Lupin could matter because it may clear an important obstacle to future competition for ivacaftor, the active ingredient in Vertex’s Kalydeco.

That does not mean a lower-cost generic is available today. Lupin has not announced a final FDA approval, a launch date, or a price for its proposed ivacaftor oral granules. But the decision removes a significant patent-infringement barrier. If Lupin ultimately reaches the market with a meaningfully lower-priced product, the result could be broader and more reliable access for members of the cystic fibrosis community.

Why Access Matters

Cystic fibrosis is a genetic disease that affects close to 40,000 people in the United States. It is caused by changes in the CFTR gene, and the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation reports that more than 1,700 different mutations can cause the disease. The right CFTR modulator can make a profound difference, but is dependent upon a patient’s particular mutation.

Kalydeco is Vertex’s branded drug containing ivacaftor as its active ingredient. It is approved for patients with at least one of 97 CFTR mutations shown to respond to ivacaftor. For eligible patients, ivacaftor targets the underlying protein defect rather than merely treating symptoms. Cystic Fibrosis Foundation: Kalydeco FDA prescribing information

Yet medical eligibility is not always the same thing as real-world access. The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation has identified prior authorization, coverage denials, insurer restrictions, and out-of-pocket costs as continuing barriers to CF therapies. Those obstacles can delay treatment even for patients whose clinicians have determined that a modulator is appropriate. CFF: Adequate, Affordable Coverage CFF access statement

The Decision Opens a Door, Not the Pharmacy Counter

In Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Lupin Ltd., the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware rejected Vertex’s claims that Lupin’s proposed generic ivacaftor product infringed four Kalydeco-related patents. The dispute centered on the amount of ivacaftor in the formulation. Vertex’s patents claimed formulations containing 80%, or “about 80%,” ivacaftor. Lupin’s proposed product contains about 74.26% ivacaftor and uses a different manufacturing process.

The number mattered because Vertex had publicly disclosed ivacaftor formulations ranging from about 10% to about 80% before seeking the patents. That earlier disclosure created a prior-art problem: a patent applicant generally cannot obtain a patent on something already disclosed to the public unless it can establish a meaningful basis for patentability.

Vertex responded by arguing during patent prosecution that the formulation containing exactly 80% ivacaftor produced surprising results, chiefly unexpected solubility. The patent examiner accepted that 80% formulation as significant, but did not accept Vertex’s later attempt to claim a broader range of “about 72% to about 88%.” The examiner concluded that the broader range was obvious in light of the prior art and that Vertex had not shown the supposedly surprising results would occur throughout that range.

At trial, Vertex tried to read “about 80%” broadly enough to cover Lupin’s roughly 74.26% formulation. Judge Bibas declined. The court concluded that Vertex could not use the word “about,” or the doctrine of equivalents, to enforce patent rights across a broader range than the one it had been able to justify and obtain from the Patent Office. The court also rejected the idea that similar therapeutic purpose or bioequivalence alone makes a generic formulation infringing. In short, the court held Vertex to the numerical limits and statements it relied on during the patent-application process.

The patent analysis is important, but the larger story is what competition could mean for patients. Kalydeco’s current published U.S. list price is about $29,058 per 28-day supply, or approximately $378,000 annually. That is not what most patients pay at the pharmacy counter. Insurance coverage, deductibles, copay support, and patient-assistance programs can make an individual patient’s out-of-pocket amount much lower. Vertex WAC disclosure

Still, the price paid by insurers and pharmacy benefit managers affects what happens before the prescription is filled. High-cost specialty drugs are often subject to formulary restrictions, prior authorization, and other utilization-management rules. A lower-priced generic can give health plans a stronger financial basis to cover a therapy more favorably and may reduce the friction that patients and care teams face when seeking approval. The FDA recognizes that generic competition can make treatment more affordable and increase patient access.

A Reason for Cautious Optimism

It would be premature to promise a particular price reduction, an immediate launch, or automatic insurance coverage. Lupin has publicized tentative, not final, FDA approval for its ivacaftor oral granules, and it has not announced a price. But the court’s ruling is still meaningful: it moves the market one step closer to the possibility of competition.

For the cystic fibrosis community, that possibility matters. A competitive market can help make it easier for patients to obtain a medicine their genetic profile makes them eligible to receive. The real victory will come when fewer people with CF face treatment delays or coverage barriers because a critical therapy is simply too expensive.

0 Comments

Even Strong Brands Can Lose Enforcement Rights If They Miss a Trademark Application

7/17/2026

0 Comments

This article was also published on LinkedIn on July 17, 2026.
www.linkedin.com/pulse/even-strong-brands-can-lose-enforcement-rights-miss-trademark-kaider-4xute/

A trademark registration is a powerful tool, but it is not self-enforcing. Brand owners have to keep watching the marketplace and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for new uses and new applications that may conflict with their marks.

That point is especially important because delay can have real consequences. If a company waits too long to act, a competitor may be able to argue that the brand owner “slept on its rights.” In some cases, that delay can prevent the brand owner from stopping the later user—even when the senior brand is valuable and even when confusion may exist.

The LUSH Example

A recent example comes from Pinkette Clothing, Inc. v. Cosmetic Warriors Ltd., 894 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2018). Cosmetic Warriors is the company behind the well-known LUSH cosmetics brand. It used and protected the LUSH mark for cosmetics and related goods.

Importantly, Cosmetic Warriors was not careless about trademark enforcement generally. The court noted that Cosmetic Warriors actively policed the LUSH mark, and its enforcement log reflected more than 130 trademark-enforcement matters. It had investigated other uses, opposed applications, and filed infringement actions.

In other words, this was not a company that ignored trademark protection.

But one missed application still mattered.

What Went Wrong

Pinkette Clothing began using LUSH for women’s clothing in 2003. In 2009, Pinkette filed a U.S. trademark application to register LUSH for clothing.

A trademark watch service notified Cosmetic Warriors’ outside counsel of Pinkette’s application. But no opposition was filed. Pinkette’s application proceeded to registration in July 2010.
Cosmetic Warriors later tried to stop Pinkette and cancel Pinkette’s registration. By then, Pinkette had continued using the LUSH name for clothing, sold through major retailers, and built its business around that mark.

The jury found for Cosmetic Warriors on infringement and cancellation. But the court held that Cosmetic Warriors had waited too long. The defense was laches—a legal doctrine that can apply when a party delays asserting its rights and the other side is prejudiced by that delay.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed. Cosmetic Warriors could not stop Pinkette from using LUSH for clothing, and it could not cancel Pinkette’s registration.

The Plain-English Lesson

The lesson is simple:

If you see a conflicting trademark application, do not put it in a drawer. Deal with it promptly.

A trademark watch notice is only useful if someone reviews it, evaluates the risk, and takes action when action is needed. Missing the opposition window can turn a manageable trademark issue into a much harder fight later.

Even a strong brand can lose practical enforcement options if another company is allowed to register and build a business around a similar mark.

Put differently: Monitoring catches the problem. Legal review decides whether it matters. Timely action preserves your options.

Why Trademark Monitoring Matters

Trademark monitoring helps brand owners identify potentially conflicting applications before they become bigger problems.

A good monitoring process can help a company:

Find similar trademark applications while they are still pending;
Decide whether an application is a real threat or a harmless coexistence issue;
Oppose problematic applications before they register;
Send a demand letter before the other business invests heavily in the mark;
Create a record of active brand protection; and
Avoid arguments that the company waited too long.

The goal is not to fight every application. The goal is to know what is happening early enough to make a smart decision.

Do Not Let Delay Become the Defense

The LUSH case is a useful reminder that trademark enforcement is not just about having strong rights. It is also about acting at the right time.

Cosmetic Warriors had a valuable brand and a vigorous enforcement history. But missing this particular application, and then waiting years to act, gave the later user a powerful defense.
For brand owners, that is the risk: a missed application today can become a lost enforcement opportunity tomorrow.

If your company has invested in a brand name, logo, or product line, trademark monitoring should be part of your ongoing protection strategy.

KaiderLaw® helps businesses monitor trademark applications and marketplace activity for marks that may be too close to their brands. We perform periodic searches, assess risk, recommend next steps, and help clients act before delay becomes a problem.

0 Comments

The HOT GIRLS READ Controversy: What the Law Says and What the Market Decides

6/4/2026

0 Comments

This article was also published on LinkedIn on June 4, 2025
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/hot-girls-read-controversy-what-law-says-market-decides-kaider-ozcve

What happens when the legality of trademark registration collides with the market forces surrounding a cultural movement? This is the question confronting Allie Mitrovich, a TikTok creator who goes by the handle AllieRoseCo, as she has found herself in the midst of an online firestorm. On August 27, 2024, Allie filed a trademark application for the mark HOT GIRLS READ. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office registered the mark on February 3, 2026. When it became publicly known, the online book community was furious.

The issue is that the phrase “Hot Girls Read” has been in widespread use across social media platforms, like TikTok and Instagram, for some time. The origin of the phrase is unclear, but it spread organically and became something of a cultural identity for book enthusiasts. That community now feels betrayed by one of its members attempting to register as a commercial mark what the community considers its shared identity.

What a Trademark Does and Does Not Do

As a trademark attorney with more than two decades in brand protection, I find that some of the online anger here is misdirected and it may help to explain briefly what a trademark actually does. A trademark is a brand identifier. It informs the public about the source of goods and services. For example, when someone sees a restaurant with “golden arches,” they know that restaurant is part of the McDonald’s® franchise and, therefore, they know what products will be available inside and what quality they can expect. Therefore, the golden arches function as a trademark.

When the USPTO reviews a trademark application, one of the main areas of their focus is whether the mark acts as a brand identifier. Another application, for HOT GIRLS READ BOOKS, which was filed before Allie’s application, was rejected for this very reason. The applicant offered online printing services and presented HOT GIRLS READ BOOKS as a phrase customers could select to have printed on products. The USPTO found that the phrase was functioning as content being delivered, not as a brand identifying the source of the printing service itself. That distinction matters: a mark has to tell consumers who is selling the goods or services, not just describe what is being sold or printed. In Allie’s case, the USPTO decided that the mark as it was shown in the specimen she provided was a proper brand that identified the products as having come from her company.

Equally important to this issue, however, is what a trademark does not do. Specifically, even a registered trademark does not claim ownership of a phrase in the cultural sense. In other words, it does not prevent casual use, social media bios, book club names, or other non-commercial contexts.

Enforcement: The Sharper Grievance

While some in the community have a generalized frustration with registering the mark, others are more focused. A trademark registration gives its owner the right to enforce its mark; in other words, to stop or prevent others from using the mark on goods that may cause confusion in the market as to their source. In fact, a trademark owner who fails to “police” its mark risks weakening its ability to enforce it later, including through defenses like acquiescence or even cancellation for abandonment.

What seems to have ruffled the most feathers is that Allie posted on Instagram that she was aware that others were selling goods covered by her registration (bookmarks, stickers, notebooks, t-shirts, etc.) with the HOT GIRLS READ mark and she asked them, politely, to remove those listings. This is exactly what a trademark owner can and should do to protect its brand. It is being perceived, however, as shutting down other small businesses that helped to build the brand to which she is laying claim.

It is worth noting here that this is not the only registered “Hot Girl” mark. There are other active registrations, including HOT GIRLS VOTE, HOT GIRLS DO BARRE, and even HOT GIRLS HAVE IBS. Many other “Hot Girl” marks are currently pending. We are seeing a growing trend of registrations built on internet phrases that develop cultural weight.

Legality vs. Market

What is interesting in this case is not whether the mark was properly registered, it was. Nor is it whether Allie’s actions to enforce her mark are defensible, which they certainly are. Rather, what makes this case unusual is the intersection between the legality of trademark registration and the forces in the mark’s relevant market.

While trademark law gives a registrant rights to protect a mark, it does not give the registrant a market. In this case, the online community that helped build the cultural resonance behind “Hot Girls Read” is also the most likely customer base for the goods covered by the mark. With this in mind, how does a brand built on a community identity navigate enforcement without alienating the community itself?

Practical Takeaways

The HOT GIRLS READ situation illustrates a distinction that every brand owner should understand. Registering a trademark requires answering two related but separate questions. The first is whether a mark is legally registrable, a technical question that trademark law is well-equipped to address. The second, and often more consequential question, is whether registering a particular mark serves the business's long-term interests. Those two questions do not always have the same answer. When a phrase carries cultural weight, registration may be legally available but strategically complex, particularly when the community most associated with the phrase is also the brand's primary market. Brand strategy and trademark strategy need to be aligned from the beginning, and a good trademark attorney brings value to both sides of that conversation.

What Are Your Thoughts?

This is a case I intend to monitor closely. But, what do you think? Do you view this as a savvy entrepreneur riding the momentum of a cultural phenomenon? Is it an affront to the online reading community? Have you faced a similar tension in your own business between what the law permits and what your market will accept? I would be interested in hearing from brand owners who have navigated this question.

0 Comments

A Legal Checklist for the Startup Brewery

4/26/2022

0 Comments

For those hoping to realize their dream of starting a craft brewery, the number of tasks can be overwhelming and it may be difficult to know where to begin. Building the right team to help achieve each objective can smooth the path considerably. One of the first members of that team should be an attorney knowledgeable in the industry. The information below is not a comprehensive list of everything a brewery needs to do, but is intended to provide a rough estimation of the time and expense required for the major events that may require an attorney, as well as identifying opportunities to save expense by doing some tasks in-house. These items are listed in a sequential order that may be useful, but is certainly not a requirement.

Form Corporate Entity
In most cases, a limited liability company (LLC) is the best structure for a startup brewery, though it is wise to first consult a CPA or tax professional familiar with breweries. Secretary of State offices often have simple online forms for the Articles of Organization of an LLC that do not require the services of an attorney. However, some States, such as California, New York, and Delaware, require an LLC to have a signed operating agreement. As explained below, the operating agreement should be drafted by an attorney and in some cases the attorney may offer a package that includes creation of the operating agreement along with creating and filing the articles of organization. Though it varies state-to-state, the filing fees for Articles of Organization are typically $100-200 and it generally takes 2-3 weeks for the application to be accepted by the state, though it can sometimes be expedited for an additional fee.

To read the rest of the article, click here.

0 Comments

Reflections from One Year in Operation

4/10/2020

0 Comments

I met Christian Layke in April 2016, when he was still the head brewer at the Rockville, Maryland location of Gordon Biersch. Like many others I had spoken to before, and since, he wanted to open his own brewery. But, he wasn't a homebrewer with romantic ideas of going pro with a 5 barrel system and a shoestring budget. He had many years of education and experience in brewing (in addition to being a homebrewer) and had grandiose ideas of opening a full production brewery with a world-class taproom and launching immediately into distribution. I was skeptical...at first. I quickly came to realize that Christian had already developed a clear vision of what he wanted to build and had concrete plans to get there.

Fast forward to March 2020. Christian and his business partner, Brett Robison, just celebrated the first anniversary of opening Silver Branch Brewing Company in Silver Spring, Maryland. I sat down with them recently to reflect on the legal lessons they had learned in the three years leading up to their opening.

To read the rest of the article on the Beverage Master website, click here or see our Articles page.

To request a PDF copy of the article, click here.

0 Comments

Distribution Agreements: Negotiate Your "PreNup" Carefully

2/10/2020

1 Comment

Starting a brewery requires learning a lot of new skills and practices that have nothing to do with making great beer. One of the most confusing and frustrating is the issue of distribution. If their state allows, most new breweries initially distribute their own products and, if the brewery is content to be relatively local, that might never change. But, in many cases, brewery growth necessitates working with a distributor. This is not a relationship to be entered into lightly. A distributor becomes an ambassador for the brewery's brand and, once retained, the supplier may have little control over how its beer is marketed. Further, these relationships can be difficult or financially impossible to break once established.

To read the rest of the article on the Beverage Master website, click here.

To request a PDF copy of the article, click here.

1 Comment

Anatomy of a Trademark Case

1/14/2020

1 Comment

In earlier articles, I have discussed the benefits of federal registration of trademarks, how they differ from patents and copyrighted materials, and how far you should go to protect your marks. But, when someone decides to take the ultimate step to initiate litigation, I find that they often have little understanding of the process, the timelines, the costs, and the burdens involved. This article is meant to give a high-level view of what a litigation entails, either at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office or in federal court.

To read the rest of the article on The Grapevine Magazine website, click here.

To request a PDF copy of the article, click here.

1 Comment

Herbicide Drift: A Common Problem Affecting Vineyards Worldwide

11/15/2019

2 Comments

By: Judit Monis, Ph.D. and Brian D. Kaider, Esq.

When damage caused by an herbicide is noticed in the vineyard, growers must act quickly to determine the injury's cause. In all instances, damage must be documented with photos. n addition, physical samples must be submitted to a lab to determine which pesticide is the culprit of the injury. Since there are many different possible chemicals that can cause similar symptoms, the grower needs to have some knowledge as to what chemical is suspected as the laboratory needs to perform specific tests to confirm the presence. A common problem is that chemicals can move a long distance, hence not always easy to determine where the drift originated. However, if the grower, knows the origin of the herbicide (saw spraying activity in a nearby farm), s/he could attempt to ask the farmer to follow label directions to avoid drift or to use a less volatile product. If the activity continues in spite of the request, the only viable solution may be to take legal action against the perpetrators.

To read the rest of the article on The Grapevine Magazine website, click here.

To request a PDF copy of the article, click here.

2 Comments

Enforcing Your Trademarks: How Far Should You Go?

9/12/2019

1 Comment

You’ve secured federal registration for your trademarks and you’ve been building your brand recognition. Per your trademark attorney’s recommendation, you’ve had quarterly searches conducted to find similar marks. Lo and behold, a new entry to the market is using your trademark. Now what? Stop and take a breath; let the initial surprise or anger settle. There is a lot to consider before taking any action.

Take Stock of the Situation

First, take a look at your own trademark. Is it the name of your winery or of one of your products? Is it a national brand or one that is distributed in a small geographic area? In what classes of goods and services is it registered (e.g., class 033 for wine, class 040 for “custom production of wine for others,” etc.)?

Then look at the competitor’s mark. Is the mark identical to yours or similar? How similar? Is it broadly distributed? Is it used for the same goods and services as your mark? If not, how similar are the goods and services? Are your products marketed through the same trade channels? Are consumers likely to encounter both your products and theirs? Have they attempted to register their trademark and, if so, where are they in that process?

To read the rest of the article on The Grapevine Magazine website, click here.

1 Comment

<<Previous

Maryland Brewery DTC is Permanent... But It's Not What It Was in 2021

A Potential Win for the Cystic Fibrosis Community: What the Vertex-Lupin Patent Decision Could Mean for Access to Ivacaftor

Even Strong Brands Can Lose Enforcement Rights If They Miss a Trademark Application

The LUSH Example

What Went Wrong

The Plain-English Lesson

Why Trademark Monitoring Matters

Do Not Let Delay Become the Defense

The HOT GIRLS READ Controversy: What the Law Says and What the Market Decides

A Legal Checklist for the Startup Brewery

Reflections from One Year in Operation

Distribution Agreements: Negotiate Your "PreNup" Carefully

Anatomy of a Trademark Case

Herbicide Drift: A Common Problem Affecting Vineyards Worldwide

Enforcing Your Trademarks: How Far Should You Go?

Archives

Brian Kaider

Categories