Wowee wow wow! Great news, and great spotting!! Also note:
Withdrawal of Opposition
On December 4, 2023, Opposer filed a withdrawal of the opposition, with Applicant’s written consent. In view thereof, the opposition is dismissed without prejudice. See Trademark Rule 2.106(c).
34 12/04/2023 TERMINATED
Good stuff. Motion to withdraw accepted!
I also note that this was "dismissed without prejudice," which means that they didn't go to trial to get the court to rule.
Hopefully this means their 'settlement negotiations' -- after almost 3 years -- must be complete (=hopefully they are now good friends).
I say hopefully, because without a PR announcing a deal, we don't know if Ilegal Mezcal -- now owned by Barcardi -- made the deal proposed earlier this year, or simply walked away from Nixon, saying they don't need his trademarked phrase "Illegal Brands."
Note: I can no longer find the phrase "the Illegal Brand" on the Ilegal Mezcal website that I a) spotted once upon a time and b) thought I posted about, but I see from a Google-search-dug-up reddit post from 8 months ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/Mezcal/comments/12etdja/any_good_ones_here/
that English speakers do mistakenly refer to Ilegal Mezcal as "the illegal brand:
midkirby· 8 mo. ago I have one of the illegal brand bottles that my husband buys. I can’t stand it as I think it tastes like diesel. Just bought Vida, haven’t tasted yet.
The timing of 'announcing' the end of this case is interesting, given that some brokerage firms seem to be showing that a market maker has assigned a real market value to the shares.
(The personal opinion is unimportant. English speakers are going to refer to it as 'that illegal brand'.)