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…
Category Archives U.S. Circuit Courts
A New York federal court has dismissed a putative class action alleging Whole Foods Market Group overcharged its customers for some prepackaged foods, finding that the plaintiffs failed to specify any particular transactions in which the grocer overcharged them. In re Whole Foods Mkt. Grp., Inc. Overcharging Litig., No. 15-5838 (S.D.N.Y., order entered March 1, 2016). The complaint was filed after the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) announced the results of its investigation into “systemic overcharging” at Whole Foods stores across the city. The plaintiffs alleged that they “regularly purchased”—“one or two times per month”—pre-packaged products from Whole Foods that the DCA identified in its press release, including cheese, cupcakes and chicken fingers. The court took issue with the plaintiffs’ reliance on the DCA press release, finding that its “statements fall very far short of reporting an investigative finding of ubiquitous, systematic over-weighting at Whole Foods’ New…
A California federal court has rejected a May 2015 settlement agreement reached by StarKist Co. and a class of consumers who alleged the company underfilled its cans of tuna. Hendricks v. StarKist Co., No. 13-0729 (N.D. Cal., order entered February 19, 2016). The court identified two issues with the settlement: (i) the notice sent to class members did not notify the class of the amended release of future claims, so the settlement notice was inadequate; and (ii) the scope of the original and amended releases violates the identical factual predicate rule. Specifically, the release was too broad because it released StarKist from claims relating to any purchase of StarKist products rather than limiting it to a release from claims related to the purchase of underfilled StarKist tuna products. Details about the settlement agreement appear in Issue 566 of this Update. Issue 595
A Maine federal court has granted the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) a permanent injunction against Mill Stream Corp., a seafood company that allegedly failed to take measures preventing the formation and growth of Clostridium botulinum, the cause of botulism, or Listeria monocytogenes, the cause of listeriosis. U.S. v. Mill Stream Corp., No. 16-0080 (D. Me., order entered February 12, 2016). The injunction prevents the company and its employees from processing or distributing food produced at Mill Stream’s facilities or by its owner until several conditions have been satisfied, including: (i) retention of an independent laboratory to test for Listeria, (ii) development of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point plans by an independent expert, (iii) implementation of such plans, (iv) completion of additional employee training, and (v) approval to reopen by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). “The failure to plan for and control the presence of bacteria and neurotoxins…
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a lower court’s decision that California cannot enforce its statute regulating the empty space between a product and its packaging against producers of meat and poultry products, finding that the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) preempt the statute. Del Real v. Harris, No. 13-16893 (9th Cir., order entered February 12, 2016). California Attorney General Kamala Harris appealed a district court’s permanent injunction barring enforcement of the slack-fill law against Del Real, which produces heat-and-serve meat and poultry products. The appeals court’s opinion cites precedent interpreting the FMIA and PPIA as creating a uniform national labeling standard. “When the FMIA and PPIA’s express preemption clauses are read in light of Congress’s concern for uniformity and a lesser level of regulation, it is unlikely that Congress intended for the states to be allowed to develop and apply…
A consumer has filed a putative class action against The Wendy’s Co. alleging a failure to sufficiently secure customer payment card data. Torres v. Wendy’s Co., No. 16-0210 (M.D. Fla., filed February 8, 2016). Wendy’s announced in late January 2016 that it had discovered in its processing systems a software program designed to steal credit and debit card information, several weeks after the plaintiff discovered that his debit card had been used in fraudulent purchases totaling almost $600. “Wendy’s could have prevented this Data Breach,” the complaint asserts. “The malicious software used in the Data Breach was more than likely a variant of ‘BlackPOS,’ the identical malware strain that hackers used in last year’s data breach at many other retail establishments. While many retailers, banks and card companies responded to recent breaches by adopting technology that helps make transactions more secure, Wendy’s has acknowledged that it has retained a security consultant to…
A consumer has filed a lawsuit against Kraft Heinz Foods Co. alleging the company sells its grated Parmesan as “100% Grated Parmesan Cheese” despite containing “significant amounts of adulterants and fillers,” including cellulose, or “wood pulp.” Lewin v. Kraft Heinz Foods Co., No. 16-0823 (N.D. Cal., filed February 18, 2016). The lawsuit comes in the wake of a Bloomberg Business article investigating the content of several leading companies’ grated-Parmesan products. The plaintiff alleges that the 3.8 percent of the product composed of cellulose precludes Kraft from labeling its cheese as “100% Grated Parmesan.” For allegations of misrepresentation, fraud and violations of California’s consumer-protection statutes, the plaintiff seeks class certification, damages and an injunction. For its investigation, Bloomberg hired a laboratory to test grated-Parmesan products for levels of cellulose, an additive often described as “wood pulp” approved for use in food in amounts up to 4 percent. The tests apparently found higher…
A California federal court has dismissed a lawsuit against Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. alleging the company falsely advertises its food as free of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) despite selling meat and dairy produced from animals fed GMO products as well as soft drinks manufactured with GMO corn syrup. Gallagher v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., No. 15-3952 (N.D. Cal., order entered February 5, 2016). The plaintiff had failed to plausibly plead her allegations, the court found, because she failed to specify which products she purchased. Accordingly, the court granted Chipotle’s motion to dismiss but allowed the plaintiff leave to amend. Additional information about the complaint appears in Issue 577 of this Update. Meanwhile, a jury ordered Chipotle to pay $351,936 in back pay and $255,000 in punitive damages to three female former managers at restaurants near Cincinnati, Ohio, over allegations of gender discrimination. Rogers v. Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc., No. 13-0146…
Cumberland Packing Corp. and a group of consumers have reached a settlement agreement in a lawsuit alleging that Cumberland Packing Corp. misrepresents its Stevia in the Raw® sweetener products as all natural despite containing genetically modified organisms. Frohberg v. Cumberland Packing Corp., No. 14-0748 (E.D.N.Y., motion filed February 22, 2016). Under the agreement, Cumberland will pay up to $1,547,000 to reimburse class members with $2.00—or 40 percent of the average purchase price—per purchase of Stevia in the Raw®, to a maximum of $16 per person. In addition, Cumberland will remove “100% Natural” or “All Natural” label claims. Issue 595
A Texas federal court has dismissed multidistrict litigation (MDL) alleging that Whole Foods Market Inc. lists incorrect amounts of sugar on its yogurt labels, concluding the Consumer Reports data relied on by the plaintiffs did not meet federal standards. In re Whole Foods Mkt. Inc. Greek Yogurt Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., MDL No. 2588 (W.D. Tex., Austin Div., order entered February 16, 2016). The consumers claimed Whole Foods’ store-brand yogurt contains 11.4 grams of sugar per serving, while the listed sugar content is 2 grams. Details about some of the 11 consolidated lawsuits appear in Issues 533 and 534 of this Update. Whole Foods argued that the consumers’ claims were preempted by the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) because the scientific testing techniques used by Consumer Reports failed to comply with the testing methodology determined by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The court agreed, noting that…
