The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has affirmed summary judgment dismissing a putative class action alleging that Twinings North America Inc.'s teas contained fewer antioxidants than claimed on product labels, holding the plaintiff had failed to establish standing. Lanovaz v. Twinings N. Am. Inc., No. 16-16628 (9th Cir., entered June 6, 2018). The court focused on the plaintiff's statement that she would not purchase Twinings tea again even if the company changed the allegedly misleading labels. To establish standing, a plaintiff must show an imminent or actual threat of future harm, the court held, and the plaintiff’s “some day intention” of professed intent, “without any description of concrete plans, or indeed even any specification of when that some day will be—do[es] not support a finding of the ‘actual or imminent’ injury.”
Category Archives U.S. Circuit Courts
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has vacated the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB's) rejection of a patent application for a fruit dehydration apparatus. In re Durance, No. 2017-1486 (Fed. Cir., entered June 1, 2018). The inventors applied for a patent for a microwave dehydration container containing a rotating chamber to tumble organic materials during the drying process, but the examiner rejected it for prior art and structural identity and PTAB affirmed. The Federal Circuit found that “the Patent Office continually shifted its position” on its grounds for rejection, resulting in the applicants responding to “moving target rejections.” In addition, the court held that PTAB failed to review the applicants’ reply brief arguments, directing the board to consider them on remand and to determine whether a structural identity rejection can be used to find a prima facie case of obviousness for method claims.
The California Supreme Court has affirmed an appeals court ruling holding that an assessment collected to subsidize a grapes promotional campaign is constitutional and not compelled speech. Delano Farms Co. v. Cal. Table Grape Comm'n, No. S226538 (Cal., entered May 24, 2018). The growers argued that the program required them to "sponsor a viewpoint (promoting all California table grapes equally) with which they disagree" because they "believe that the table grapes they grow and ship are exceptional." The California Table Grape Commission asserted that the program was government speech rather than private speech, resulting in no free speech violation. The court concluded that the compelled grape subsidy constituted government speech, focusing on the "governmental direction and control" of the messaging. "In sum, the Commission was created by statute and given a specific mission to, among other things, promote in a generic fashion a particular agricultural product," the court held. "In…
A federal court has dismissed a lawsuit alleging that the National List's sunset review process violates the Administrative Procedures Act. Ctr. for Food Safety v. Perdue, No. 15-1590 (N.D. Cal., entered May 24, 2018). The court found that the notice promulgating the alteration of the review process was not a final action because it did not “alter any criteria or standards for the evaluation of a particular substance." The challenge further presented ripeness issues because the harms, such as the inclusion of certain compounds in organic foods, may never materialize, the court noted. The notice does not predetermine the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) decision to renew or remove a substance, the court held, and the plaintiffs are not precluded from later asserting harms from an “allegedly wrongful renewal. Plaintiffs must accordingly await that decision for the Court to properly review USDA’s actions,” the court concluded.
A federal court has denied a motion to reconsider a denial of class certification in a lawsuit alleging that Tropicana Products Inc. mislabeled its orange juice as “natural.” In re Tropicana Orange Juice Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., No. 11-7382 (D.N.J., entered May 24, 2018). The plaintiffs argued that the court misconstrued its theory of liability, gave more weight to the defendant’s expert opinions, overlooked evidence of class-wide injury and erred in its ascertainability analysis. The court ruled that because the plaintiffs “exhaustively alleged” that the juice contained added flavoring, whether the product conforms to the standard of identity for pasteurized orange juice "lies at the heart of Plaintiff’s theory of liability as articulated by Plaintiffs’ own words.” Finding the claims unsupported by the pleadings, the court found no cause for reconsideration. The court also pointed to an expert opinion showing variation in the reasoning behind consumer decisions to buy the…
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has affirmed a ruling that a Texas restaurant, “The Krusty Krab,” infringed Viacom International Inc.'s common law trademark. Viacom Int’l, Inc. v. IJR Capital Invs., No. 17-20334 (5th Cir., entered May 22, 2018). The court held that Viacom had established both use and distinctiveness of the mark because "The Krusty Krab” had been extensively and consistently licensed, establishing Viacom’s ownership of the mark as an identifier of goods and services. The court also found an impermissible likelihood of consumer confusion. Although the court noted that its ruling did not establish trademark protection “in every context” for Viacom’s mark, it affirmed the finding of the district court that Viacom had established its ownership in common law.
The Colorado Supreme Court has upheld a municipal ordinance charging a $0.20 "waste reduction fee" for paper grocery bags and prohibiting disposable plastic bags, ruling the charge is part of a regulatory program of waste management and not a tax. Colo. Union of Taxpayers Found. v. City of Aspen, No. 16SC377 (Colo., entered May 21, 2018). After two members of the plaintiff advocacy group paid the bag charge in Aspen, the group sued the city and members of the city council alleging the charge was a tax subject to voter approval under the state's Taxpayer Bill of Rights. The trial court and the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled in the city’s favor. The court noted that grocers are permitted to retain a portion of the $0.20 charge to provide information to customers, train staff and improve collection and administration, while the remainder is submitted to the city on a form separate…
Spangler Candy Co. has filed a lawsuit alleging that the packaging for Tootsie Roll Industries LLC's Charms Mini Pops infringes its Dum Dums trade dress. Spangler Candy Co. v. Tootsie Roll Indus., LLC, No. 18-1146 (N.D. Ohio, filed May 18, 2018). Spangler asserts that for decades it has sold its lollipops in red bags with the brand name in white letters above a display window, a red border at the bottom and a yellow circle or oval with blue numerals in the center. The complaint alleges that Tootsie Roll has changed its Charms Mini Pops packaging from a yellow bag to a bag that resembles the Dum Dums bag. Further, pallet displays of the products at some retailers show bags inside similar yellow boxes, the complaint asserts, making the “overall visual impression” of the two products “deceptively and confusingly similar.” Claiming trade dress infringement and unfair competition, Spangler seeks damages, injunctive relief,…
A woman has filed a lawsuit alleging she was hospitalized after eating Salmonella-contaminated eggs from Rose Acre Farms Inc. Roberts v. Rose Acre Farms, Inc., No. 18-61082 (S.D. Fla., filed May 14, 2018). The plaintiff alleges that she purchased eggs packaged by Coburn Farms, a Sav-A-Lot Food Stores brand, and became ill enough to require two hospitalizations. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has linked Rose Acre Farms eggs to a nine-state outbreak of Salmonella infections. Claiming strict product liability, breach of warranty, negligence and negligence per se, the plaintiff seeks damages and attorney’s fees.
A federal court in New York has dismissed with prejudice a putative class action alleging that Pepsi-Cola Co. falsely and deceptively used the term "diet" for its Diet Pepsi, leading consumers to believe that the beverage would help them lose weight or assist with "healthy weight management." Manuel v. Pepsi-Cola Co., No. 17-7955 (S.D.N.Y., entered May 17, 2018). Following three federal district court dismissals of nearly identical claims, the court found that "no reasonable consumer would understand a soft drink labeled as 'diet' to be a weight-loss product." "'Diet' immediately precedes 'Pepsi,' and thereby connotes a relative health claim—that Diet Pepsi assists in weight management relative to regular Pepsi," the court held. Although "diet" is used to identify other weight-loss products, "in the context of soft drinks, the term unambiguously signals reduced calorie content relative to the non-diet version of the drink in question." Ruling that a cause of action for false or misleading…
