A New Jersey federal court has granted Gerber’s motion to compel discovery of medical records in a consumer putative class action alleging that the company misrepresented its probiotic formula as capable of improving infant immune systems. In re Gerber Probiotic Sales Practices Litig., No. 12-835 (D.N.J., order entered April 10, 2015). Gerber requested medical records for the children who ingested the products, but the plaintiffs objected that the “overly broad” request violated their rights of privacy and that the records were subject to physician-patient privilege. The court agreed with Gerber, finding “a legitimate need for medical records as there is no other source that could test the actual effectiveness of the products that claim to produce immune system health. Proof in the form of scientific studies and expert testimony may not be sufficient,” the court said, so “actual facts or the lack thereof may be essential.” Further, the medical records…
Category Archives 3rd Circuit
A federal jury in Pennsylvania has found that H.J. Heinz Co. did not appropriate the idea of a dual-opening condiment packaging, the “Dip & Squeeze” packet, from a man who proposed a similar idea during a meeting with the company. Wawrzynski v. H.J. Heinz Co., No. 11-1098 (W.D. Penn., verdict entered April 1, 2015). The plaintiff claimed that after he presented his “Little Dipper” packaging to the company in 2008, Heinz commissioned him to create samples for testing then abruptly ended the relationship in 2009. The “Dip & Squeeze” packet was introduced in 2010. After a three-day trial, the jury found that the man’s idea was novel but different from the product that Heinz ultimately pursued. Additional details on the case appear in Issues 531 and 552 of this Update. See Law360, April 1, 2015; Legal Intelligencer, April 2, 2015. Issue 560
Let’s Buy British Imports (LBB Imports) has reportedly agreed to stop importing Cadbury chocolate made overseas pursuant to the settlement of a lawsuit in which Hershey Co. alleged that the importer violated the candy company’s trademarks and trade dress of Cadbury, Kit Kat® and other products by selling versions produced internationally. Hershey Co. v. LBB Imports LLC, No. 14-1655 (M.D. Penn., settlement date unknown). The settlement agreement apparently restricts the importation of all Cadbury chocolate as well as Kit Kat® bars, Toffee Crisps, York Peppermint Patties, and Maltesers®. Many consumers have responded negatively to the settlement terms; a campaign to boycott Hershey began on Twitter, and a MoveOn.org petition to protest Hershey’s trademark protection actions has garnered more than 25,000 signatures. The protesters reportedly argue that British Cadbury chocolate tastes better because of its ingredients—the British version of Cadbury’s Dairy Milk bar contains milk as its first ingredient while the American…
A Pennsylvania federal court has denied H.J. Heinz Co.’s motion for summary judgment in a lawsuit alleging that the company stole the idea for the “Dip & Squeeze” ketchup packet. Wawrzynski v. H.J. Heinz Co., No. 11-1098 (W.D. Penn., order entered January 7, 2015). The plaintiff asserts that he met with the company in 2008 and presented the idea for the dual-opening packet, but they never reached a deal; Heinz later released its Dip & Squeeze packet, which the plaintiff argues was too similar to his concept. The court noted that although Heinz presented evidence showing that it was actively developing a dual-function condiment container before meeting with the plaintiff, the plaintiff had also shown that Heinz had been unsuccessful in creating or marketing a feasible container. “Given the evidence presented by both parties to this lawsuit,” the court concluded, “whether either or both of Plaintiff’s ideas were novel and concrete…
Hellmann’s producer Unilever has filed a notice of voluntary dismissal in a case alleging that Hampton Creek’s plant-based mayonnaise substitute, “Just Mayo,” could not call itself mayo because it contains no eggs as required by U.S. Food and Drug Administration standards for the product. Conopco Inc. v. Hampton Creek Inc., No. 14-6856 (D.N.J., notice filed December 18, 2014). Unilever filed the complaint in October 2014, arguing that Just Mayo is a misleading brand name because the substance behaves differently than real mayonnaise when used in recipes; the plant-based product can apparently separate into parts rather than binding ingredients together. “Unilever has decided to withdraw its lawsuit against Hampton Creek so that Hampton Creek can address its label directly with industry groups and appropriate regulatory authorities,” said Mike Faherty, Vice President for Foods, Unilever North America, in a statement. “We applaud Hampton Creek’s commitment to innovation and its inspired corporate purpose. We…
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has filed a complaint in a New Jersey federal court against Gerber Products Co., alleging that since 2011 the company has falsely promoted its Good Start Gentle infant formula as a product that can prevent or reduce the risk of a child developing allergies. FTC v. Gerber Prods. Co., No. 14-6771 (U.S. Dist. Ct., D.N.J., filed October 29, 2014). The formula is apparently made with partially hydrolyzed whey proteins (PHWPs) that Gerber purportedly claims make the product easier to digest than formula made with intact cow’s milk protein. Product stickers and ads compare the product to breastfeeding as a way to naturally protect a baby from allergies and claim that the formula is the “1st and ONLY” “TO REDUCE THE RISK OF DEVELOPING ALLERGIES.” The company also allegedly claims that the formula “is the first and only infant formula that meets the criteria for…
A New Jersey federal court has refused to dismiss a lawsuit alleging that Gerber falsely advertises some of its products as providing immune system boosts and as being nearly equal to breast milk. In re Gerber Probiotics Sales Practices Litig., No. 12-835 (D.N.J., order entered October 6, 2014). The plaintiffs alleged that Gerber misleadingly advertised three products—Good Start Protect Infant Formula, Good Start 2 Protect Formula for 9 through 24 months and DHA & Probiotic Cereal—as boosting immunity with an “Immuniprotect” formula that includes trademarked Bifidus BL probiotic bacteria. Gerber challenged the plaintiffs’ fourth amended complaint for lack of standing, arguing that the complaint did not allege that a named plaintiff purchased the infant formula product, but the court found that the basis for the claims was the same in that Gerber advertised each product as “scientifically advanced” and superior through the inclusion of Bifidus BL. The court agreed with Gerber’s…
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has found that a lower court did not abuse its discretion in approving a $3 million settlement offer in a nationwide class action alleging that Ferrero USA falsely advertised Nutella hazelnut spread as nutritious for children. In re Nutella Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., No. 12-3456 (3rd Cir., order entered September 29, 2014). Several class members had objected to the size of the attorney’s fees award and the deduction of the award from the settlement fund. More details about the settlement appear in Issue 444 and Issue 530 of this Update. Issue 539
Hershey Co. has filed a complaint in Pennsylvania federal court alleging that LLB Imports infringes its trademarks and trade dress for several of its products, including Reese’s, York, Cadbury, Malteser, Kit Kat, and Rolo. Hershey Co. v. LLB Imports LLC, No. 14-1655 (M.D. Penn., filed August 25, 2014). According to the complaint, LLB Imports has been selling Toffee Crisp, Yorkie, Maltesers, Cadbury, Kit Kat, and Rolo products manufactured outside of the United States bearing nutritional information panels required by other countries, and the sale of the products allegedly infringes trademarks and trade dress owned by or exclusively licensed to Hershey. In addition to several trademark infringement claims, the candy company alleges that Toffee Crisp infringes the trade dress for Reese’s, citing its shade of orange and outlined yellow script, as well as the trade dress of Cadbury, Kit Kat and Rolo. Hershey asks for an injunction, a declaration that LLB violated the…
In a petition for a writ of certiorari, plaintiffs alleging harm by exposure to the flavoring agent diacetyl have argued that the Third Circuit erred in ruling that Aaroma Holdings cannot be held liable for the actions of diacetyl producer Emoral Inc., which Aaroma purchased following the alleged exposures. Diacetyl Plaintiffs v. Aaroma Holdings, No. 14-71 (U.S., petition for writ of certiorari filed July 18, 2014). The terms of the 2010 purchase agreement confirming Aaroma’s acquisition of Emoral apparently noted that Emoral may be subject to diacetyl litigation and stated that Aaroma did not assume liability for any future claims. Emoral filed for bankruptcy protection in 2011, and the bankruptcy trustee reportedly released Aaroma from future diacetyl causes of action against Emoral in exchange for $500,000. In addition to accusing the Third Circuit of diverging from binding precedent on injured creditors’ claims, the plaintiffs’ petition argues that the decision is contrary…
