In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit ____________________

Nos. 19-2200, 19-2713, 19-2782, 19-3097 & 19-3116

MOLSON COORS BEVERAGE COMPANY USA LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant, Cross-Appellee,

v.

ANHEUSER-BUSCH COMPANIES, LLC,

Defendant-Appellee, Cross-Appellant.

____________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Wisconsin.

No. 19-cv-218-wmc — William M. Conley, Judge.

____________________

ARGUED SEPTEMBER 23, 2019, and APRIL 28, 2020 —

DECIDED MAY 1, 2020

____________________

Before EASTERBROOK, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit 

Judges.

EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. Bud Light, Miller Lite, and 

Coors Light are the best-selling light beers in the United 

States. Bud is made by Anheuser-Busch, Miller and Coors by 

Molson Coors (called MillerCoors when this case began). 

The beers’ producers regularly a]ack each other in print and 

televised campaigns. For example, Miller is touted with the 
2 Nos. 19-2200 et al.

slogan “Tastes Great, Less Filling”. Early in 2019 AnheuserBusch began to advertise that Bud Light is made using rice, 

while Miller Lite and Coors Light use corn syrup as a source 

of sugar that yeast ferments into alcohol.

Molson Coors responded in the market and in court. In 

the market it advertised that its beers taste be]er because of

the difference between rice and corn syrup (which, it added, 

differs from the high-fructose corn syrup used to sweeten 

soft drinks and other consumer products). In court it contended that Anheuser-Busch violates §43 of the Lanham Act, 

15 U.S.C. §1125, by implying that a product made from corn 

syrup also contains corn syrup.

The district judge’s initial opinion concluded that Anheuser-Busch is free to advertise that Bud Light is made using rice while Molson Coors’s products are made using corn 

syrup. MillerCoors, LLC v. Anheuser-Busch Cos., 385 F. Supp. 

3d 730 (W.D. Wis. 2019). The judge added, however, that 

Anheuser-Busch cannot say or imply anything that would 

cause consumers to think that its rival’s products contain

corn syrup. The opinion ended with a statement that most 

but not all of Anheuser-Busch’s advertising is proper. Molson Coors appealed; Anheuser-Busch did not.

While the appeal was pending, the district judge issued a 

new order, purporting to amend the existing one, forbidding 

Anheuser-Busch from using point-of-sale packaging with 

the language “no corn syrup” or an equivalent icon. 2019 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149954 (W.D. Wis. Sept. 4, 2019). AnheuserBusch appealed from that order. Two days later the district 

judge modified the modification, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152559 

(W.D. Wis. Sept. 6, 2019), and Anheuser-Busch appealed 

again.
Nos. 19-2200 et al. 3

When the appeals were argued at the end of last September, only the first of the district court’s decisions had been 

covered by the briefs. And the oral argument was dominated 

by procedural questions rather than the merits. The district 

court had not issued an injunction complying with Fed. R.

Civ. P. 65(d)—and by modifying each decision after an appeal had been filed, the district court raised some complex 

questions about both its jurisdiction and ours. Seeking to 

clear the way for a substantive decision, we remanded with 

instructions to issue a proper preliminary injunction that 

would cover all of the issues that the district court’s three 

separate orders had resolved. MillerCoors LLC v. AnheuserBusch Cos., 940 F.3d 922 (7th Cir. 2019). The district court issued such an order, and cross-appeals were filed. After receiving a new round of briefs, we heard oral argument a 

second time and now can tackle the merits.

The briefs take us on a tour of trademark law, covering 

issues both procedural (such as when a district court may 

presume, or find, irreparable injury) and substantive (such 

as when an advertiser’s knowledge that some consumers 

will misunderstand truthful statements should be taken as 

equivalent to an intent to deceive them). Compare Mead 

Johnson & Co. v. AbboA Laboratories, 201 F.3d 883 (7th Cir. 

2000), modified on denial of rehearing, 209 F.3d 1032 (7th 

Cir. 2000), with Eli Lilly & Co. v. Arla Foods, Inc., 893 F.3d 375 

(7th Cir. 2018). We have concluded, however, that it is not 

necessary to pursue any of those issues, because this case is 

and always has been simple.

The basic contention has been that the true statement 

“their beer is made using corn syrup and ours isn’t” wrongly 

implies that “their beer contains corn syrup”. Molson Coors 
4 Nos. 19-2200 et al.

acknowledges that Miller Lite and Coors Light are made using corn syrup, while Bud Light is not. Molson Coors also 

identifies corn syrup as an “ingredient” in Miller Lite and 

Coors Light. The ingredient list for Miller Lite is: “Water, 

Barley Malt, Corn Syrup (Dextrose), Yeast, Hops and Hop 

Extract”. See 

h]ps://www.molsoncoors.com/sites/molsonco/files/Molson

%20Coors%20US%20Product%20Nutritional%20Information

%203-16-20_0.pdf. The ingredient list for Coors Light is: 

“Water, Barley Malt, Corn Syrup (Dextrose), Yeast, Hop Extract”. Ibid.

Molson Coors insists that a list of “ingredients” differs 

from what the finished products “contain”. That’s possible, 

and the omission of alcohol from the list of ingredients could 

support a conclusion that Molson Coors treats that word as a 

synonym for “inputs”. Yet common usage equates a product’s ingredients with its constituents—indeed, some of Molson Coors’s own managers testified that a beer “contains” 

what’s on the ingredients list. At all events Anheuser-Busch 

has not advertised that its rival’s products “contain” corn 

syrup. True, it has made statements from which some consumers doubtless infer that some corn syrup avoids fermentation and makes it into the beer. Still, Molson Coors’s own 

statements yield the same inference. Many people infer from 

a list of a finished product’s “ingredients” that things on the 

list are in the finished product. If Anheuser-Busch has led 

consumers to believe this, it is hard to see why those statements can be enjoined.

By choosing a word such as “ingredients” with multiple 

potential meanings, Molson Coors brought this problem on 

itself. It is enough for us to hold that it is not “false or mis-
Nos. 19-2200 et al. 5

leading” (§1125(a)(1)) for a seller to say or imply, of a business rival, something that the rival says about itself. Whether 

that “something” is good because it improves flavor (Miller 

and Coors’s take) or bad (Bud’s) is for consumers rather than 

the judiciary to decide. If Molson Coors does not like the 

sneering tone of Anheuser-Busch’s ads, it can mock Bud 

Light in return. Litigation should not be a substitute for 

competition in the market.

The judgment is affirmed to the extent that it denies Molson Coors’s request for an injunction (and is challenged in 

Molson Coors’s two appeals) and reversed to the extent that 

the Bud Light advertising or packaging has been enjoined

(and is challenged in Anheuser-Busch’s three appeals). To 

the extent that the injunction prevents Anheuser-Busch from 

stating that Miller Lite or Coors Light “contain” corn syrup, 

it is vacated. (Because Anheuser-Busch has never stated this, 

or said that it wants to do so, that aspect of the order is advisory.) The case is remanded to the district court for further 

proceedings consistent with this opinion. The first issue on 

remand will be whether any question remains for trial, or 

whether our decision instead wraps up the proceedings.