A consumer has filed a putative class action against Mondelez International Inc., maker of Sour Patch Kids, alleging the company sells 28 pieces of candy in a non-transparent cardboard package capable of holding 50 pieces. Izquierdo v. Mondelez Int’l Inc., No. 16-4697 (S.D.N.Y., filed June 20, 2016). The complaint asserts that Mondelez intentionally sells Sour Patch Watermelon in oversized packages in violation of state and federal law. For allegations of misrepresentation, fraud and unjust enrichment as well as violations of New York consumer-protection statutes, the plaintiff seeks class certification, damages, restitution, an injunction requiring more accurate packaging and attorney’s fees. Issue 609
Category Archives 2nd Circuit
A consumer has filed a putative class action against Herr Foods Inc., maker of potato chips, popcorn and cheese curls products, alleging the company mislabels its foods as preservative-free despite containing citric acid. Hu v. Herr Foods Inc., No. 16-3313 (E.D.N.Y., filed June 20, 2016). The complaint alleges Herr seeks “to capitalize on consumers’ preference for natural products and the association between such products and a wholesome way of life” by labeling the products as free of preservatives, but the products contain citric acid, “a non-natural, chemically processed ingredient and preservative.” For allegations of misrepresentation, breach of warranties and unjust enrichment as well as violations of New York consumer-protection statutes, the plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, damages, an injunction and attorney’s fees. Issue 609
Betty Inc., a Connecticut-based advertising agency, has filed a lawsuit alleging PepsiCo Inc. used its idea for a Super Bowl commercial without payment or attribution. Betty Inc. v. PepsiCo Inc., No. 16-4215 (S.D.N.Y., filed June 7, 2016). The complaint asserts that employees of Betty presented the idea for “All Kinds/Living Jukebox,” a tour through different musical genres and styles of dance representing the “Joy of Pepsi®,” in November 2015, then accepted PepsiCo’s request to refine the idea for a payment of $5,000. Betty argues it refined the idea but told PepsiCo that the $5,000 did not transfer any rights of use or ownership of the advertising concept. PepsiCo did not seek to further produce the concept after the refinement, but “[t]he Super Bowl halftime commercial PepsiCo aired during the 2016 Super Bowl copies, is fundamentally based on, and is derivative of, the ‘All Kinds/Living Jukebox’ advertising storyline Betty presented to…
A class of consumers in New York and California, represented by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), has brought suit in the Eastern District of New York seeking restitution, actual and punitive damages, and injunctive relief against the Kellogg Co. for allegedly misbranding its Cheez-It® “Whole Grain” snack crackers. The complaint alleges that Cheez-It® “Whole Grain” crackers contain only a small amount of whole grain, but that the product packaging is designed in such a way as to mislead consumers to believe that the product is produced primarily with whole grains. The class contends that the primary ingredient is enriched flour, however, the product package states conspicuously the words “Whole Grain” on five of the six packaging panels. And when purchasing the crackers, lead plaintiffs sought a product that was predominantly whole grain. The complaint further alleges that the class members would not have purchased the Cheez-It®…
A consumer has filed a putative class action against Kimlan Foods U.S.A. alleging the company misrepresents its jarred preserved-food products as having “No Preservatives Added” despite containing citric acid. Hu v. Golden Orchid, Ltd., No. 16-2234 (E.D.N.Y., filed May 4, 2016). The plaintiff purchased a 14-ounce jar of pickled cucumbers at a supermarket in New York, allegedly relying on the “No Preservatives” claims when choosing the product, then later discovered that citric acid is “a non-natural, highly chemically processed ingredient regularly used as a preservative (due to its acidic pH level which creates an environment where bacteria cannot thrive) in ready-to-drink tea products.” The complaint further argues that although “the acidic pH of citric acid would most certainly provide tartness to the Products, such explanation is pretextual because the real function of the citric acid in the Products is as a preservative.” For alleged violations of New York consumer-protection laws, negligent…
Salvatore Ferragamo S.p.A. has filed a lawsuit against Ferragamo Winery and Vince Ferragamo, a former Los Angeles Rams and Green Bay Packers quarterback, for trademark infringement and dilution of the “Ferragamo” mark. Salvatore Ferragamo S.P.A. v. Ferragamo Winery, No. 16-3313 (S.D.N.Y., filed May 4, 2016). The fashion company asserts that it owns two trademarks to “Ferragamo” for use in connection with wine, which it produces at a Tuscan estate. The former football player owns and operates Ferragamo Winery in California, and the complaint argues that he and his company have ignored repeated cease-and-desist demands. Salvatore Ferragamo alleges federal trademark infringement, cybersquatting, trade dress infringement, trademark dilution and unfair competition claims, and it seeks damages, an injunction preventing further use of “Ferragamo” in regard to wine production and an order directing the winery to destroy infringing products. Issue 603
A New York federal court has rejected Chobani, LLC’s motion for reconsideration of a preliminary injunction preventing the company from claiming in its advertising that competitor Dannon Co.’s yogurt products contain chlorine and are thereby unhealthy, unsafe and inferior to Chobani yogurt. Chobani, LLC v. Dannon Co., Inc., No. 16-0030 (N.D.N.Y., order entered April 22, 2016). Chobani’s marketing campaign displayed an image of a swimming pool—which is cleaned with calcium hypochlorite, a substance colloquially referred to as “chlorine”—while asserting that Dannon Light & Fit® yogurt contained chlorine, one of four chemical elements that constitute sweetener sucralose. Additional details about the complaint appear in Issue 590 of this Update. According to the court, Chobani argued that the “limitations place it at a competitive disadvantage because it completely precludes usage of the phrase ‘no bad stuff’ in relation to Dannon products regardless of whether or not a safety message is at issue.…
A consumer has filed a putative class action alleging Outernational Brands, Inc. mislabels its Vivaloe aloe-vera beverages as “All Natural” and preservative-free even though the products contain citric acid. Chen v. Outernational Brands, Inc., No. 16-1634 (E.D.N.Y., filed April 4, 2016). “The term ‘All Natural’ only applies to those products that contain no non-natural or synthetic ingredients and consist entirely of ingredients that are only minimally processed,” the complaint asserts. The plaintiff argues that the presence of citric acid, “which is not extracted from citric fruits but industrially synthesized via complex chemical synthetic routes and thus cannot be considered ‘minimally processed,’” precludes Outernational from labeling Vivaloe as “All Natural” or free of preservatives. The complaint admits the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not defined “natural,” but argues “there is no reasonable definition of ‘All Natural’ that includes ingredients that, even if sourced from ‘nature,’ are subjected to extensive transformative…
A California resident has filed a putative class action alleging Quaker Oats Co. mislabels its instant oatmeal as containing maple syrup despite containing no syrup or maple sugar. Eisenlord v. Quaker Oats Co., No. 16-1442 (C.D. Cal., filed March 1, 2016). Citing a letter from the Vermont Maple Sugar Makers’ Association to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the complaint asserts that adding maple sugar to a product can allow a company to charge a premium price. The plaintiff argues that he relied on the name of the product and a prominent image of maple syrup on the packaging to believe that the oatmeal contained maple syrup, and had he known “that the product did not contain maple syrup or maple sugar as an ingredient, he would not have purchased it.” For allegations of fraudulent inducement and violations of California’s consumer-protection statute, the plaintiff seeks class certification, damages, an injunction…
Experience Hendrix has filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against Tiger Paw Distributors, Private Label Distillery and Leon Hendrix, Jimi’s brother, for selling an alcohol product called “Purple Haze Liqueur.” Experience Hendrix v. Tiger Paw Distrib., No. 16-0642 (N.D. Ga., filed February 29, 2016). Experience Hendrix, established by Jimi’s father and now owned by Jimi’s sister and cousin, alleges that Leon and his company are selling Purple Haze Liqueur and promoting it with Jimi’s image, which Experience Hendrix owns. According to the complaint, Leon was previously enjoined from selling Jimi Hendrix Electric Vodka, sold in a purple bottle, after 2007 trademark litigation. The company argues that it hold copyright protection for several of Jimi’s songs, including “Purple Haze” and “Voodoo Child (Slight Return).” In addition, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office previously refused to grant trademark rights to Tiger Paw for marks related to Jimi Hendrix because they suggested a false connection to…
