The Law Kept the Word
A federal regulation says nothing distilled outside the United States may be called bourbon, the company that sells more bourbon than anyone else was founded in Osaka in 1899, and the second fact does not break the first.
이 글의 한국어판 → 버번이라는 단어만 미국에 남았다
The name he could not get back
In 1933, the year the dry law ended, James Beauregard Beam went back to Clermont, Kentucky and put a distillery up again. His company's history page still describes the method in one clause: he "rebuilt his distillery by hand in Clermont, KY, with the help of friends and family." Two years later the first batch came off, and he found out what thirteen years of not distilling had cost him. It was not the equipment. "In 1935, the first batch was ready, and since he no longer owned the rights to the Old Tub name, he sold it as Colonel James B. Beam Bourbon."
Old Tub had been the brand since about 1820, when Jacob Beam's son David renamed the whiskey after the still house. It had survived the move to Nelson County in 1854, the change of proprietor in 1894, and one railroad. It did not survive Prohibition. Later that same year Jim Beam's son, T. Jeremiah Beam, reincorporated the business as the Jim B. Beam Distilling Company and put his father's name on the label, because his father's name was available and the old one was not.
The most recognized name in American whiskey is a substitution.
Hold on to the noun in that story, because a federal regulation is built on the same one. Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 5, Section 143 sets the standard of identity for whisky, and subsection (b) opens like this: "The word 'bourbon' may not be used to describe any whisky or whisky-based distilled spirits not distilled and aged in the United States." Read the subject of the sentence. Not the liquid, not the distillery, not the shareholder. The word.
Six questions
This magazine asks six questions of everything on an American shelf. Where was it born. Where is it incorporated. Where is the head office. Who owns the shares. Where is it made. Who signs the paycheck. When the six answers cluster, there is nothing to write. When they scatter, the gap is the article.
Born: Kentucky, twice. Jacob Beam sold his first jug in 1795, by the company's own account, and Bill Samuels, Sr. started the Maker's Mark distillery at Loretto in 1952 or 1953 — the company's own two histories give different years, and a federal appeals court says he "formulated the recipe" in 1953, so I will not pick one.
Incorporated: Delaware, and the same Delaware corporation the whole time. The Securities and Exchange Commission's filing database keeps a corporation's discarded names with dates attached, and Central Index Key 0000789073 has three of them: American Brands, Inc., then Fortune Brands, Inc. from December 2, 1997, then Beam Inc. from October 2011, then Beam Suntory Inc. from May 1, 2014, and Suntory Global Spirits Inc. since 2024. Commission file number 1-9076 throughout. Employer identification number 13-3295276 throughout. Four signs, one corporation.
Head office: 11 Madison Avenue, twelfth floor, Manhattan, opened in 2022. Before that it was 510 Lake Cook Road in Deerfield, Illinois. The parent is Suntory Holdings Limited, founded as a family business in Osaka in 1899, and it is not listed on any exchange.
Shareholders: not disclosed. There is no table. Suntory Holdings publishes audited financial statements because it sells publicly offered corporate bonds, not because anybody made it report to owners. What can be established is thin and specific: eight directors, three of them from the founding families, and all three of the representative directors are named Torii or Saji. The president, Nobuhiro Torii, states the relation himself: "It has been over 125 years since my great-grandfather, Shinjiro Torii, founded Suntory in Osaka, Japan."
Made: two American whiskey distilleries on the company's list of landmark sites, both in Kentucky. Clermont and Loretto. That is the entire American whiskey footprint of a company that also owns Yamazaki, Laphroaig, Bowmore, Sauza and Sipsmith.
Paycheck: American corporations sign it. Suntory Global Spirits Inc. of New York. Jim Beam Brands Co. of 222 West Merchandise Mart Plaza, Chicago. Maker's Mark Distillery, PBC, of Loretto, Kentucky, which is registered as a public benefit corporation and which the company says was the first distillery in bourbon country to join the B Corp community. Roughly six thousand people work for the spirits business across nearly thirty countries, out of some forty thousand in the Suntory group — fifteen in a hundred, my division. How many of them are in Kentucky has not been published, and I could not find it.
So the boxes scatter at two, three and four, and cluster at one, five and six. Which raises the question this piece exists to answer. What exactly did Congress protect in 1964, and what did it leave completely alone?
A resolution that starts by looking at Scotland
The document is one page of the Statutes at Large, volume 78, page 1208. The heading reads BOURBON WHISKEY DESIGNATED AS DISTINCTIVE PRODUCT OF U.S. The number in the margin is S. Con. Res. 19, and the last line is "Agreed to May 4, 1964."
Three things about it are usually reported wrong, and all three are visible in the text itself.
The first is the shape of the argument. The resolution does not begin with bourbon. It begins with a policy of "recognizing marks of origin applicable to alcoholic beverages imported into the United States," then works through the standards already granted to "Scotch whisky" as a distinctive product of Scotland, "Canadian whisky" as a distinctive product of Canada, and "cognac" as grape brandy from the Cognac region of France. Only then: "Whereas 'Bourbon whiskey' is a distinctive product of the United States and is unlike other types of alcoholic beverages, whether foreign or domestic." The legal standing of bourbon is not an American invention. It is an American application of a European idea, and the drafters put the European examples first because that was the argument.
The second is what the resolution actually asked for. Not export protection. The operative clause asks that the recognition of bourbon be brought to the attention of federal agencies "toward the end that such agencies will take appropriate action to prohibit the importation into the United States of whisky designated as 'Bourbon whiskey.'" The point was to keep the word out of the domestic market. It was a border measure aimed inward.
The third is that this is not a law. A concurrent resolution is not presented to the president and carries no binding force, and the text says as much about itself: "it is the sense of Congress." What binds is the Treasury regulation, which is why the operative sentence in this whole story sits in the Code of Federal Regulations and not in the United States Code. Congress announced. The regulator enforced.
Three errors in one sentence, on the company's own page
Now set that against how the brand tells it. The Jim Beam history page, in the paragraph about 1938 and the mint julep, ends with this: "And to top it all off, in 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson declared Jim Beam 'America's Native Spirit.'"
Wrong actor. A concurrent resolution never reaches a president's desk; there is no signature line to be wrong about.
Wrong object. The resolution designates "Bourbon whiskey," a class of goods that any qualifying distiller in the United States may make. No brand name appears anywhere in it.
Wrong words. The phrase in the document is "a distinctive product of the United States." "America's Native Spirit" is not in the text.
The trade association, which has the least to gain from precision, gets it right on its own site: bourbon is "America's only native spirit, as declared by Congress in 1964." The association names Congress. The brand names a president and hands itself the medal.
I want to be careful about how much weight that carries. It is a marketing page, not a filing, and nobody is under oath on a brand history. But it is the most-read account of 1964 that most drinkers will ever encounter, and the direction of the error is not random. A public rule that protects a category, available to every distiller in Kentucky, gets rewritten as a private honor awarded to one label. The commons becomes an heirloom. And the heirloom is now the property of a company in Osaka.
The example the regulation chose
Which brings us to the strangest sentence in Section 5.143, and the one that settles what the law is doing.
Having said that certain whiskies are "distinctive products of the United States," the regulation explains that if such a whisky is distilled outside the country, the country of origin must be stated right next to the type designation. Then it gives three examples of statements that satisfy the requirement: "Brazilian Corn Whisky," "Rye Whisky distilled in Sweden," and "Blended Whisky—Product of Japan."
Japan is in the regulation. Not as a threat, not as an exclusion. As a worked example of how to do it correctly.
The rule contemplates American-style whisky made abroad, including in Japan, and permits it in the American market on one condition: that it not use the protected word. A short list of designations — light whisky, blended light whisky, and whisky distilled from a named grain mash — may only be produced in the United States. Everything else is a labeling instruction. Nowhere in the section, or in the resolution behind it, is there a sentence about who may own the distillery.
There is an asymmetry worth noticing on the way past. The regulation's table of foreign distinctive products recognizes Scotch, Irish and Canadian whisky as products of their countries. Japanese whisky is not on that list. So American law protects the name "bourbon" and does not protect the name "Japanese whisky," and as of May 1, 2014, both categories sit inside the same consolidated accounts.
The regulation has one more thing to offer, and it is a small human one. The sentence requiring the "American type" prefix says the designation "must be proceeded by the term." Proceeded, not preceded [sic]. The typo is live in the current text.
The strongest case that none of this matters
Here is the objection at full strength, and it deserves the best sentences in this piece rather than the worst.
Nothing has moved. Every bottle of Jim Beam and every bottle of Maker's Mark is still distilled and aged in Kentucky, in the same two towns, by the same two corporations. The eighth-generation master distiller, Freddie Noe, took the title in 2022 and is a Beam by descent. The paycheck is signed by an American company, out of an American account, under American labor law and American payroll tax. Section 5.143 sets exactly one test and the product passes it without an asterisk. The regulation contains no ownership clause because ownership was never the thing at risk; a distillery cannot be relocated to Osaka in any sense that matters, since the barrels have to sit in Kentucky warehouses for years or the word comes off the label. Judged by the only standard the law actually wrote down, the whiskey is as American as it was in 1963. Anyone treating the shareholder register as the test is reading a document that does not exist.
That is right, and I am not going to pretend to beat it. The law did not fail. It never had the job people assign to it.
But hold the two halves together and something else appears. The rule protects a word, and the word turns out to be the most valuable thing anybody involved has ever bought.
More for the names than for the company
On May 1, 2014, Suntory Holdings merged a wholly owned subsidiary called SUS Merger Sub Limited into Beam Inc., with Beam surviving, and every outstanding common share "converted into the right to receive $83.5 in cash for each share without interest." That share price is a hard number, from the audited report, and it is the only price in this story I would defend without qualification.
The total is stated in yen, because yen is the reporting currency: ¥1,423,053 million, including ¥3,513 million of direct acquisition costs, with a further ¥8,941 million booked as other expenses. The report also prints a dollar figure, $11,804,670 thousand, and that figure is a convenience translation struck at the December 31, 2014 rate of about ¥120.55 to the dollar — my division — not the amount that changed hands on May 1. I have seen the deal reported in dollars at several sizes. I am not going to add one.
What the report does allow is a comparison inside a single currency, and it is the number I would put in front of anyone who thinks brand accounting is soft. Against a purchase price of ¥1,423,053 million, the group recorded goodwill of ¥657,429 million and trademarks of ¥980,319 million. Add the two: ¥1,637,748 million. That is 115.1 percent of what was paid for the entire company — my arithmetic on their figures. The identifiable net assets, everything with a physical or contractual existence, came to ¥765,624 million.
Then the accounting policy, in one sentence: "A majority of trademarks are deemed to have indefinite useful lives and will not be amortized." The goodwill gets written off over twenty years on a straight line. The names do not get written off at all, because a name is not assumed to wear out.
The effect on the parent's balance sheet inside twelve months: trademarks went from ¥184,943 million at the end of 2013 to ¥1,323,907 million at the end of 2014, roughly a sevenfold increase, and the number of consolidated subsidiaries went from 180 to 273. Cash out for shares in subsidiaries went from ¥13,914 million to ¥1,388,964 million.
A company founded in Osaka in 1899 spent more on two Kentucky words than the two Kentucky companies were worth.
Nine hundred and forty days
It is worth remembering how briefly the American version of this company existed in the form everyone now imagines.
Until 2011 the corporation that owned Jim Beam also owned Moen faucets, Master Lock padlocks, Titleist and FootJoy golf equipment, and Swingline staplers, and described itself to investors as "a $7 billion leading consumer brands company." Bourbon was a line item next to office supplies.
On October 3, 2011, at 11:59 in the evening, Fortune Brands finished spinning off its home and hardware business, having first taken a $500 million dividend out of it. Two minutes later, "effective as of 12:01 a.m. on October 4, 2011, Fortune Brands, Inc. changed its name to Beam Inc.," executed under Section 253 of the Delaware General Corporation Law by merging a shell subsidiary into the parent. The stock kept trading, now under the ticker BEAM. It closed that day at $44.75.
From that minute to April 30, 2014 is about 940 days. That is the entire life of a listed American company named after Jim Beam. Anybody who bought at the close on the first day and held to the merger got $83.50, up 86.6 percent — my calculation from the two figures. The pure-play American spirits company was an interlude between a conglomerate and a Japanese parent, and it lasted under two years and seven months.
The bond that outlived all four names
One document did not notice any of it.
On the financial page Suntory Holdings maintains for bondholders, the last line of the corporate bond table lists an instrument issued between June 30, 1998 and January 12, 2006: US dollar denominated publicly offered corporate bonds, $500 million issued, $346 million outstanding, maturities running from July 15, 2028 to January 15, 2036. The issuer is printed as Suntory Global Spirits Inc.
In 1998 that entity was called Fortune Brands, Inc., and Suntory had nothing to do with it. The paper has not changed. The name on the paper has changed four times.
Someone lent dollars to an American company in 1998. The obligation now sits on the balance sheet of a private Japanese holding company and runs to 2036 — thirty-eight years from first issue, my subtraction. A single bond has walked the whole distance from American Brands to Suntory Global Spirits without being redeemed, renamed by its issuer at every stage, indifferent throughout.
A footnote in the same neighborhood: as of June 17, 2026 the long-term rating on Suntory Holdings is AA from the Japanese agency JCR, Baa1 from Moody's and A- from Standard & Poor's. Four notches between the domestic view and the American one, on the same borrower.
The months when Maker's Mark was French
The other thing people get wrong about consolidation is the direction it comes from.
In 2005, Fortune Brands agreed to buy more than twenty spirits and wine brands out of the breakup of Allied Domecq, paying £2,721,621,217 — $4,816,217,036 at the exchange rate implied by the filing, which works out to about $1.77 to the pound, my division. The Federal Trade Commission terminated its review early for most of the portfolio. For two brands it did not. A press release dated June 30, 2005 puts it plainly: "The review required under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act remains in effect for Fortune Brands' purchase of the Canadian Club whisky and Maker's Mark bourbon brands."
And in the meantime, per the same release, "Canadian Club and Maker's Mark would continue to be owned and managed separately by Pernod Ricard and Pernod Ricard would receive the earnings on the brands."
So the antitrust hesitation was American, the interim owner was French, and the concern was that one company would hold both Jim Beam and Maker's Mark. When and how that review ended I could not establish from any primary document, and the reason the agency paused is not stated anywhere I could read. What is on the record is the pause itself, and what it says about which combination looked like a problem in Washington in 2005. Not a foreign buyer. A domestic one.
What the lawsuit actually won
The best-documented thing anyone at Maker's Mark ever did is in a federal appellate opinion, and it involves a deep fryer.
Maker's Mark Distillery, Inc. v. Diageo North America, Inc. was decided by the Sixth Circuit on May 9, 2012, Judge Boyce F. Martin, Jr. writing, affirming a judgment out of the Western District of Kentucky in a case filed in 2003. The opinion opens with seven words that could serve as the epigraph for this entire article: "All bourbon is whiskey, but not all whiskey is bourbon."
Page six records the origin of the seal. "Bill Samuels, Sr. formulated the recipe for Maker's Mark bourbon in 1953. His wife, Margie, conceived of the red dripping wax seal and used the family deep fryer to perfect the process of applying it." The company registered the dripping wax as a trademark in 1985, describing it as "a wax-like coating covering the cap of the bottle and trickling down the neck of the bottle in a freeform irregular pattern," and the registration says nothing about color; the enforcement was about red.
Jose Cuervo's aesthetic functionality defense failed on one line: "There is more than one way to seal a bottle with wax to make it look appealing." The court also noted that a bottle of Maker's Mark went for about $24 while the Cuervo product in question went for about $100, which is a useful reminder that the plaintiff here was the cheaper bottle.
And what did winning produce? No damages: the district court denied them and Maker's Mark did not appeal. The dilution claim failed. The costs award was $66,749.21 out of $72,670.44 requested. What the company actually took home was an injunction permanently barring Cuervo from putting red dripping wax on a bottle cap anywhere in the United States.
Nine years of litigation for a color. Which is the same species of asset the accountants would value at ¥980,319 million two years later.
One more line from the opinion, for the coincidence: the court mentions that "Robert Samuels (along with Jacob Beam, Basil Hayden, and Daniel Weller, all of whose surnames are familiar to bourbon connoisseurs) was one of Kentucky's early settlers." Three of those four surnames — Samuels, Beam, Hayden — are on labels owned today by one company. In 2012 that sentence was local color. It is now a product list.
¥42,444 million, brand unnamed
Then last year the names moved in the other direction.
Suntory Holdings closed 2025 with revenue including liquor tax of ¥3,432,483 million, up 0.4 percent, and operating income of ¥221,198 million, down 32.8 percent. Profit attributable to owners of the parent fell 50.8 percent, to ¥86,583 million. In the reconciliation from operating income to adjusted operating income there is a line that did not exist the year before: impairment losses, ¥42,444 million.
Nobuhiro Torii listed the causes on February 13, 2026, and the last one is the one that matters here: "sluggish revenue growth in Europe and the United States," weaker earnings in Thailand and Vietnam, losses on the sale of an affiliate in China, "and one-off impairment losses on trademarks." The chief financial officer, Taira Nishikawa, gave the segment number: alcoholic beverages operating income of ¥103.1 billion, down 42.9 percent, and said plainly that the decline was driven by trademark impairment.
Run the arithmetic on the segment. Operating income in spirits fell by ¥77,576 million year over year. The impairment is ¥42,444 million. That single line is 54.7 percent of the fall — my division on their numbers.
Which trademark? The company has not said. Not in the results release, not in the chief executive's comment, not in the chief financial officer's. There is no brand name attached to that figure in any document I read. I am aware that this is exactly the point where an article like this one wants to write "Suntory wrote down Jim Beam," and I want to be clear that there is no basis for it. Suntory has bought a great many companies since 2014. The audited annual report may identify the asset; I did not open it.
What the company does say about the two bourbons in the same document runs the other way: "Key Bourbon Whiskey brands, Jim Beam and Maker's Mark, outperformed the American Whiskey category in the United States despite significant headwinds for the category," citing Nielsen data as of December 27, 2025. Read the concession inside the boast. The category had significant headwinds. Outperforming a falling market is not the same as growth.
The first half of 2026 continued it: group operating income down 2.6 percent, profit attributable to owners down 19.2 percent, spirits segment operating income down 24.6 percent, and an explanation naming "a slowdown in consumption and inventory optimization by distributors in the U.S." Inventory optimization is what it is called when distributors stop ordering.
There is one absence in those documents worth stating as a fact. In the full-year materials, the half-year materials and the press releases I read from spring and summer 2026, there is no mention of tariffs. The company attributes American weakness to consumption and distributor inventories, and to nothing else.
The fourth box is empty and that is the answer
Line the six up one more time.
Born in Kentucky, 1795 by the family's own reckoning, and 1952 or 1953 at Loretto. Incorporated in Delaware, under four names and one file number. Headquartered on Madison Avenue, under a parent in Osaka. Owned by shareholders who are not disclosed, because there is no obligation to disclose them and no exchange to require it. Made in Clermont and Loretto, and nowhere else in America. Paid by American corporations, under American law, to a workforce whose size in Kentucky nobody has published.
Five of those can be answered from documents. The fourth cannot be answered at all.
That is not an oversight and it is not a scandal. It is a structural fact about what kind of company bought this one. Suntory Holdings produces audited statements because it borrows money in public markets, and a lender needs to know whether it will be repaid, not who sits at the top. An American public company would have to publish a shareholder table; an unlisted Japanese holding company does not. The most American object on the shelf is owned through the one arrangement that discloses least about ownership.
And the law is fine with all of it, because the law was never looking there.
What is uncounted here is substantial and I would rather list it than smooth it. How many people work at Clermont and Loretto: not published. Whether either floor is organized: I found no election record and no contract, in either direction. Which trademark was impaired in 2025: withheld. Who owns Suntory Holdings and in what proportions: withheld, and the figures that circulate on this point are not supported by anything I could open. When the Federal Trade Commission cleared Maker's Mark in 2005 or 2006: not established. Even the date the regulation moved from Section 5.22, where a federal court cited it in 2012, to Section 5.143, where it sits now, I could not pin down; the current part carries a 2022 source note and I will leave it there.
On August 4, 2026, the James B. Beam Distilling Co. announced it was opening part of the Clermont campus to outside makers, and the release ended with the standard list of what the company crafts: Jim Beam, Basil Hayden, Knob Creek, Booker's, Baker's, Little Book, Legent, Old Tub, Old Overholt, Old Crow, Old Grand-Dad. Eighth in that line is the name James Beauregard Beam could not use in 1935. Ninety-one years later — my subtraction — it is back, on a list issued from Clermont, Kentucky, by a subsidiary of a private company founded in Osaka in 1899, and every drop behind every one of those names still has to be distilled and aged inside the United States or it cannot be called what it is called.
So let the regulation have the last word, since it is the only party here that ever cared about words. "The word 'bourbon' may not be used to describe any whisky or whisky-based distilled spirits not distilled and aged in the United States."
That is all it says. It is also all it ever said.
Comments
Post a Comment