A research article examining the Yale Food Addiction Scale (YFAS) and Palatable Motives Eating Scale (PEMS) has concluded that together these tools “offer a rigorous way to evaluate whether an addictive process contributes to certain eating disorders, such as obesity and binge eating.” Jose Manuel Lerma-Cabrera, et al., “Food addiction as a new piece of the obesity framework,” Nutrition Journal, January 2016. Summarizing various “food addiction” studies, the authors posit that these models suggest “certain highly processed foods can have a high addictive potential and may be responsible for some cases of obesity and eating disorders.” In particular, the article notes that despite the evidence for food addiction, “it is highly unlikely that all foods have addictive potential.” It claims that manufacturers “have designed processed foods by adding sugar, salt, or fat, which can maximize the reinforcing properties of traditional foods (fruits, vegetables). The high palatability (hedonic value) that this…
Category Archives Issue 590
A new study suggests that warning labels on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) could dissuade parents from purchasing these products for children. Christina A. Roberto, et al., “The Influence of Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Health Warning Labels on Parents’ Choices,” Pediatrics, February 2016. Based on research involving tobacco warning labels, the study aimed to determine if SSB warning labels could (i) educate consumers about potential “health harms” “above and beyond” existing calorie declarations; (ii) “influence parents’ intentions to buy SSBs for their children”; and (iii) “influence parents’ perceptions and intentions toward nonlabeled beverages.” It also evaluated warning label phrasing and “parents’ beliefs about proposals to put warning labels on SSBs.” Surveying 2,381 primary caregivers of children ages 6 to 11, researchers randomly assigned parents to one of six conditions: “(1) no warning label (control); (2) calorie label; or (3–6) 1 of 4 text versions of a warning label (eg, Safety Warning: Drinking beverages with…
Three major grocers—Albertsons Companies, Hy-Vee and The Kroger Co.—have reportedly filed a lawsuit against three tuna companies alleging they conspired to fix prices of canned tuna. The companies join other grocers and consumers in pursuing damages from Tri-Union Seafoods, Starkist and Bumble Bee Foods for alleged price fixing, a practice the plaintiffs argue began in 2008 and continued until July 2015. See Undercurrent News, January 11, 2016. Details about lawsuits by other grocers appear in Issue 574 of this Update, while information about the consolidation of the suits by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation appears in Issue 588. Issue 590
Idahoan Foods LLC has filed a lawsuit against Basic American Inc. alleging the company’s line of potato products marketed under the name “Buttery Home-Style” infringes on Idahoan’s rights to “Buttery Homestyle,” its brand of potato products. Idahoan Foods LLC v. Basic Am. Inc., No. 16-0005 (D. Idaho, filed January 6, 2016). Idahoan’s trademark application to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office was filed in May 2015 and remains pending, but the company argues that it has used “Buttery Homestyle” commercially since 2003. Idahoan notified Basic American in December 2015 of its allegedly superior rights to the mark; the complaint asserts that Basic American then filed a lawsuit in California federal court seeking a declaratory judgment that “Buttery Home-Style” does not infringe “Buttery Homestyle.” Idahoan seeks an injunction, destruction of the infringing mark, damages and maturation of its trademark application. Issue 590
Chobani has filed a lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment that its advertisements claiming competitor Dannon’s yogurt contains chlorine are not false or misleading, prompting Dannon to file a counterclaim seeking a preliminary injunction. Chobani v. The Dannon Co., Inc., No. 16-0030 (N.D.N.Y., complaint filed January 8, 2016, counterclaim filed January 11, 2016). Chobani’s complaint details its campaign, launched January 6, 2016, that asserts “Dannon’s Light & Fit Greek Yogurt contains sucralose, an artificial sweetener processed with added chlorine.” The company seeks a declaration that its claims are not false, misleading, disparaging or deceptive under the Lanham Act or New York state law. Dannon’s response argues that the ad campaign “has been misinforming consumers about the health and safety of Dannon’s products while exaggerating the relative health benefits of its own product.” The counterclaim defends sucralose and its use, arguing that it “is not ‘bad’ or harmful.” Further, “Chobani’s campaign falsely…
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board ruling that a method of enzymatic hydrolysis of soy fiber for use in creating food additives is not patentable because it would have been obvious in light of previous inventions. In re Urbanski, No. 15-1272 (Fed. Cir., order entered January 8, 2016). The plaintiffs challenged the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s denial of a patent for their technique of creating food additives from soy fiber, which the examiner found to be “readily combinable” from two prior inventions. The Federal Circuit agreed with the examiner’s and appeals board’s determinations that a person of ordinary skill would have expected that adjusting the process as the plaintiffs did would have yielded the results they reached. Accordingly, the court affirmed the prior dismissal. Issue 590
A Kentucky federal court has granted a motion to dismiss an action against the owner of Duck Dynasty trademarks alleging infringement based on jurisdictional issues. Chinook USA v. Duck Commander, Inc., No. 14-1015 (W.D. Ky., Louisville Div., order entered January 8, 2015). In 2014, Duck Commander licensed the rights to several trademarks related to Duck Dynasty, including “Duck Commander Family Foods,” “Uncle Si” and “Si Robertson,” to Chinook for use on several types of beverages. Chinook later learned that Duck Commander also licensed the same rights to other companies, including Go-Time and Checkered Flag Business. Chinook sued, arguing that it held exclusive rights to the use of the trademarks on beverages. In “colorful” filings recounting “Bill Russell’s collegiate basketball career, the Scottish jurist and poet Sir Walter Scott’s Marmion, and Jackie Gleason’s role in an short-lived television series from the late 1940s,” Chinook argued that Duck Commander and the beverage…
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed a lower court’s dismissal of a lawsuit against Kellogg Co. alleging the company owed a man compensation after it implemented an idea for a portable breakfast the man had submitted through the company’s online portal for innovative ideas. Wilson v. Kellogg Co., No. 15-2237 (2nd Cir., order entered January 13, 2016). The man submitted an idea for a beverage flavored like cereal milk, but Kellogg apparently told him it was not interested in pursuing the idea. The company later obtained a trademark for “Kellogg’s Breakfast to Go” and began selling a similar product under the name in 2013. The man sought compensation for the idea, but Kellogg argued that the terms and conditions the man had agreed to upon submission limited his ability to recover any money for a successful submission. The Second Circuit agreed, finding that the terms…
A New York federal court has denied Fifth Generation, Inc.’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit arguing that its Tito’s Handmade Vodka® is falsely advertised as handmade because machines are used in the process of manufacturing the product. Singleton v. Fifth Generation, Inc., No. 15-0474 (N.D.N.Y., order entered January 12, 2016). The court rejected the company’s claim that its adherence to U.S. Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau standards does not relieve it from liability for false advertising claims. Further, the court found that “Tito’s labels could plausibly mislead a reasonable consumer to believe that its vodka is made in a hands-on, small-batch process, when it is allegedly mass-produced in a highly-automated one.” Accordingly, the court allowed several claims to continue, but dismissed allegations of breach of express warranties and negligent misrepresentation. The decision echoes a November 2015 ruling from a California federal court, which also refused to find that the safe harbor provision excused Fifth Generation from liability. Hofmann v. Fifth…
A California federal court has allowed plaintiffs in a false advertising putative class action to dismiss their claims of fraud based on the “extra virgin” quality of Filippo Berio olive oil in favor of pursuing their allegations that the products are falsely labeled as “made in Italy.” Kumar v. Salov N. Am. Corp., No. 14-2411 (N.D. Cal., Oakland Div., order entered January 8, 2016). The plaintiff sought to dismiss the “extra virgin” portion of the claims after the discovery process revealed the olive oil was sold in both clear-glass bottles—which the plaintiff asserted could damage the quality of the oil because of the light allowed through the glass—and tinted-glass bottles. Additional details about the claims’ survival of a motion to dismiss appear in Issue 554 of this Update. In February 2015, Shook Partner Ann Havelka authored an article for Law360 examining the case, arguing that it is “an example of…
12
