MillerCoors filed its response to Anheuser-Busch’s Motion to Dismiss and its reply in support of its request for a preliminary injunction yesterday.

As we wrote about before, here, and here, this case is the result of the Bud Light advertising campaign about corn syrup’s use in brewing Coors Light and Miller Lite.

In this latest filing on the request to enjoin Anheuser-Busch from continuing with the corn syrup based advertising campaign, MillerCoors calls Anheuser’s claims about transparency nonsense and continues to argue that the intent of the campaign remains to sow consumer confusion about the presence of corn syrup in the finished beers pointing out that under the Lanham Act, literal truth isn’t a defense:

Whether or not the statements made in the advertisements are literally true, s[ection] 43(a) of the Lanham Act encompasses more than blatant falsehoods. It embraces “innuendo, indirect intimations, and ambiguous suggestions” evidenced by the consuming public’s misapprehension of the hard facts underlying an advertisement.

Vidal Sassoon, Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Co., 661 F.2d 272, 277 (2d Cir. 1981)

The brief in reply goes on to address points allowed in a court order based on MillerCoors request to file a reply. 1) the harm suffered by MillerCoors, 2) criticisms of the MIllerCoors expert, 3) the speed in seeking relief, 4) MillerCoors actions in making comments about corn syrup on its own website preclude recovery.

You can find a link to the full filing below. This should be the last of the briefs on the matter.

MillerCoors also responded to AB’s motion to dismiss (linked below), arguing, again, that literal truth isn’t the standard under the Lanham Act and that the campaign doesn’t amount to fair use. That brief is below as well.

Here is the MillerCoors reply in support of its motion for preliminary injunction.

Here is the MillerCoors response to Anheuser’s motion to dismiss.