Back when he was an assistant manager at Magic Hat Brewing Co., 7D music editor Dan Bolles and his then colleagues tried to push a fictional Magic Hat #6 on April Fools Day. “The joke was that it was a light version of #9, with one-third fewer calories,” writes Bolles. “We even had fake logos made up with the number six mimicking the #9 artwork.”

Bolles’ prank was eerily prescient. Last week, Magic Hat filed an injunction against a year-old Kentucky craft brewer, defending one of its flagship beers, #9.

The complaint against West Sixth Brewing Company alleges that that brewery’s beers, branded with the numeral 6, have a mark that’s “confusingly and substantially similar” to #9, a beer Magic Hat has been making since 1995.

West Sixth was founded by four friends in spring 2012. Cofounder Ben Self, who lived in Vermont briefly during Howard Dean’s presidential campaign, says his company wasn’t trying to imitate Magic Hat. They chose the name because their brewery is located on, well, West Sixth Street. “We worked on it for a long time,” he says of the logo, which features a swirly, encircled number 6 next to a star dingbat. It was created by the Lexington company Cricket Press. “From the beginning, we were very comfortable with our logo design,” says Self.

Related Stories

Got something to say?

Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!

Corin Hirsch was a Seven Days food writer 2011 through 2016. She was also a dining critic and drinks columnist at Newsday from 2017 to 2022, and contributes to The Guardian, Wine Enthusiast and other publications. She’s spoken often on colonial era...

3 replies on “Magic Hat Defends #9 Against a Beer Named 6”

  1. Is this a news outlet? I ask because this reporter has shown a complete disregard for objectively detailing the facts of this matter a/k/a reporting news. First, this case and the Woodchuck case are *trademark* disputes not *copyright* infringement claims. Once again, there is no reference to the law or input from an intellectual property expert or lawyer. Oddly, none of the links to Magic Hat’s version of events seem to be functioning at 8pm on the day of publication yet the links to West Sixth’s positions all work. The *only* mention of *copyright* (other than here) is contained in the “vandalize(d)” Magic Hat wikipedia page. Great job with research. Editor: Please do your readers the courtesy of labeling this article and the Woodchuck piece as editorials so we do not expect facts or news.

  3. Whether intentional or not, this is a brilliant marketing scheme. Had you ever heard of West 6th before they got sued by Magic Hat? Probably not. When you get social media involved… David wins!

Comments are closed.