Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
No. 95-1017
BRIGGS, INC.,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
Defendant, Appellee.
____________________
____________________
Before
____________________
brief
appellant.
____________________
action in which
This is
a removed diversity
distributor, sued
subsidiary of Molson
Briggs
claims
that
Martlet
wrongfully
in
the
"Bangor
distribution
rights
magistrate judge
Martlet.
Market,"
for
another
company
where
all
hearing the
gave
Briggs
other
had
Molson
the
exclusive
products.
Ice,
The
judgment for
We affirm.
Bangor area for two of its products, Molson Ale and Molson
instrument other
products which
a third,
than the
Molson Golden.
There was no
designation of area
Beer,
written
distributors and
of Alcoholic
Beverages.
In
1979,
the
Certificate
Wholesale Licensee
tit.
28-A,
protection to
of Approval
Holder
1451-1465, was
local wholesale
enacted.
and
Maine
This legislation
gave
by
reasonable notice
required, section
made a prerequisite,
Martlet
beverage
section 1454.
designated Briggs
items, Molson
its
After passage
distributor for
Light, Molson
-2-
cause" was
of the
Act,
four more
malt
Brador, Molson
Exel, and
Molson
Special
distributorship
Dry.
for
Then
new
in
1993,
product,
Martlet
Molson
Ice,
gave
to
the
another
affidavits, and
The court
finally granted
Rights,
judgment for
Martlet.
Constitution, Art. I,
of
summary
Art.
I,
11,
holding
that
to
apply
the
Act
retroactively to
purpose would
be served.
Finally,
it held
public
no
amended
complaint.
We do not
dispose
of
this case
whether or not
on
the
non-constitutional ground
to
that,
its new
and
within the
separate "brand"
properly
was
the
subject
of
meaning of
an
the Act,
independent
and thus
distribution
agreement.
assigning
Briggs
Molson
Ice
argues
to
that
the
another
Act
bars
distributor
Martlet
because
from
this
-3-
constitutes
1453.1
This
dual
distributorship, in
conclusion follows
violation
from Briggs'
of
section
theory that
all
Molson
products
comprise a
(Testimony
of
"Molson is
the brand
brand.").
Allison
single "brand."
Briggs,
and Ice
chairman of
is an
the
board,
extension of
multiple distributors
See App.
___
at 349
that:
the Molson's
manufacturer to use
In support
of its
conclusion, Briggs
argues that
the Act
does not define "brand" or "label" and that these terms should be
seems
definition.
to be no single,
As it
Indeed, Briggs
effect that "A brand may identify one item, a family of items, or
all
we are
not
dealing here
with
a word
in
__
vacuo but
_____
with
its
____________________
chairman of the
obligated
Martlet
designate
Briggs
the 1975
as
its
this contention.
We note,
in addition,
that
Martlet
are
entirely
understandable.
The
only
originally
assigned some
distribution
rights to
Briggs.
at-will
contract
products
for
enforceable obligation
individual
to grant future
-4-
could
imply
an
distributorships, to say
specific
use
in
statute
that
has
for
many
years
been
"one
item" meaning
1452(1)(C))
speaks
strongly suggests
of brand.
of an
Section
agreement
1451 (and
between
approval holder
"to
one
distribute
holder's
brands
______
of
or
malt
more
of the
liquor."
the more
limited
also section
a certificate
of
certificate
(Emphasis
of
approval
added.)
The
assumption appears to
"brands,"
or "kinds,"
be that a certificate
of wine
or beer.
Section
1453(1) then
in light
of the
prohibition
in
manufacturer, and
for
differently
earlier use
this section
of the
We think it
concerns
products of
apparent,
discrete
labelled
or labels,
products of
the
distribution agreements
single
manufacturer.
good
apply only to
If the
____________________
2
approval
The
provision
holder who
wholesale licensee
agreement with
establishing
reads
as
follows:
designates a
is primarily
"No
certificate
sales territory
of
for which
into any
purpose of
an additional agreement
or label in
-5-
years.
He testified
that
the
as a separate
Briggs
urges us
interpretation
the absence
attorney.
to
give
no
of case law,
and the
This is an original, if
deference
to
the
of a definition
agency's
in the Act,
is not
meritless, argument.
an
As the
Maine Supreme Judicial Court has made clear, "We shall accept the
agency's
construction,
established
intent."
. .
especially
unless it
if,
as
here,
clearly violates
it
is
long
the legislative
Superintendent of
_________________
the Bureau of Consumer Protection, 471 A.2d 292, 296 (Me. 1984).
_________________________________
and
The conclusory
"label"
in this
refer
There
was no
obligation of
violation
context
to
all
products using
of
the Act,
or,
that "brand"
material fact.
a fortiori,
_ ________
of
any
in Martlet's refusal
Affirmed.
________
-6-