In-N-Out Burgers has filed a lawsuit alleging that Puma North America Inc. infringed its trademarks and trade dress with two pairs of shoes called "California Drive Thru" and "Cali-0 Drive Thru." In-N-Out Burgers v. Puma N. Am. Inc., No. 19-0413 (C.D. Cal., filed March 1, 2019). The shoes feature shades of red and yellow similar to In-N-Out's trademarked color scheme and liners decorated to look like hamburgers, and Puma allegedly marketed the shoes with images of hamburger-related items such as mustard. In-N-Out alleges that Puma is intentionally confusing consumers into believing that the companies have an agreement and cites multiple news stories mistakenly calling the shoes a collaboration between the brands. For allegations of trademark and trade dress infringement, In-N-Out seeks injunctions, damages, destruction of infringing materials and attorney's fees.
Category Archives Litigation
The federal government has filed a statement of interest in a lawsuit alleging that Lenny & Larry's Inc. misled consumers as to the amount of protein in its cookies. Cowen v. Lenny & Larry's Inc., No. 17-1530 (N.D. Ill., E. Div., filed February 15, 2019). The statement argues that the settlement is a marketing opportunity for Lenny & Larry's rather than a benefit for the consumer class. "The settlement before the Court has a purported $3.5 million value, but that amount disguises the limited benefits it actually offers to class members. In reality, the settlement's cash component will go almost entirely to class counsel, while the bulk of its non-monetary award will consist of free cookies the defendant plans to send to vendors across the country for distribution to whomever those vendors select," the statement asserts. "Indeed, it is difficult to imagine a less balanced settlement than one where most…
A consumer has filed a putative class action alleging that Cento Fine Foods Inc. misleadingly markets its tomatoes as "Certified San Marzano" without having the proper certification. Sibrian v. Cento Fine Foods Inc., No. 19-0974 (E.D.N.Y., filed February 19, 2019). San Marzano tomatoes are grown vertically with supports in San Marzano sul Sarno in Italy, the complaint asserts. Cento's San Marzano cans feature a logo for an Italian agency that "does not 'certify' that the Products are compliant with the San Marzano guidelines, and it is actually an entity which may have performed the [U.S. Department of Agriculture] Organic certification," the complaint argues. Cento's website also identifies a company that "verifies that the Products conform to the San Marzano official criteria," but the plaintiff alleges that the company "is believed to be the company which supplies defendant with San Marzano seeds and possibly certifies whether the Products are organic, as…
Wendy's International Inc. has settled two class actions alleging injuries stemming from a 2016 payment-system breach. Jackson v. Wendy's Int'l Inc., No. 16-0210 (M.D. Fla., entered February 26, 2019); First Choice Fed. Credit Union v. Wendy's Co., No. 16-0506 (W.D. Penn., entered February 26, 2019). A Florida federal court approved a $3.4 million settlement between a consumer class and the company, including $1.1 million in attorney's fees. In Pennsylvania, a federal court granted preliminary approval to a settlement in a lawsuit brought by a class of financial institutions that reimbursed customers for fraudulent transactions. Wendy's will pay $50 million under the settlement agreement.
A consumer has alleged that Snack Innovations Inc.'s Drizzilicious rice cakes are advertised as containing white chocolate but only contain "imitation flavoring." Morrison v. Snack Innovations Inc., No. 19-1238 (S.D.N.Y., filed February 8, 2019). The complaint asserts that "white chocolate," by U.S. regulations, contains cocoa butter, dairy ingredients and sweetener, including 20 percent cocoa butter and 3.5 percent milk fat by weight. "The imitation white chocolate in the Products do not have cocoa butter or milk fat as required, and instead have other cheap confectionary ingredients to imitate the taste of white chocolate." The plaintiff alleges fraud and violations of New York consumer-protection statutes and seeks class certification, damages, corrective advertising and attorney's fees.
The European Court of Justice's Grand Chamber has ruled that halal beef cannot carry an EU organic logo if the cows were not stunned before they were slaughtered. Œuvre d’assistance aux bêtes d’abattoirs v. Ministre de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation, No. C-497/17 (E.C.J., entered February 26, 2019). The court compared an organic-labeling regulation requiring efforts to preserve animal welfare during the slaughtering process with a regulation allowing religious rituals during slaughter. "While it is true that [the regulation] permits the practice of ritual slaughter as part of which an animal may be killed without first being stunned, that form of slaughter, which is authorised only by way of derogation in the European Union and solely in order to ensure observance of the freedom of religion [], is insufficient to remove all of the animal’s pain, distress and suffering as effectively as slaughter with pre-stunning, which, in accordance with [the regulation],…
A consumer has filed a putative class action alleging that North Dallas Honey Co. sells its Nature Nate’s honey as “100% raw” but heats it to 120 degrees during bottling. Pierce v. N. Dallas Honey Co., No. 19-0410-B (N.D. Tex., Dallas Div., filed February 19, 2019). The plaintiff argues that heating honey to more than 105 degrees can cause “[m]ost or all of the enzymes” to be “lost” or “denatured.” The plaintiff cites the “international standard promulgated by Codex Alimentarius for honey” to argue that Nature Nate’s honey contains elevated values of 5-hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF), which can indicate that “the honey has been heated enough to break down the enzymes contained in the honey.” The complaint further asserts that the honey product “is also not necessarily 100% honey” because some tested samples allegedly “showed that syrups had been added to the honey.” For allegations of negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, unjust…
The Organic Consumers Association and Food & Water Watch Inc. have filed a lawsuit alleging that Pilgrim's Pride Corp. misrepresents the conditions in which it raises its chickens. Food & Water Watch Inc. v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp. (D.C. Super. Ct., filed February 4, 2019). The complaint alleges that "Pilgrim's Pride systematically raises, transports, and slaughters chickens in inhumane factory-farm conditions," including "the routine use of antibiotics," "crowding," "the use of toxic chemicals," "the use of artificially selected fast-growing, breast-heavy chicken breeds," and "the abuse of chickens by Pilgrim's Pride contractors and employees." The organizations focus on Pilgrim's Pride's representations that its chickens are fed "only natural ingredients" and are not fed "growth hormones of any kind" as well as its assertions that the company "strongly supports the humane treatment of animals." The advocacy groups allege that Pilgrim's Pride has violated the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act and seek…
Consolidated litigation to determine whether Kind LLC misleads consumers by marketing its products as "all natural" and made without genetically modified organisms (GMOs) will continue after a two-year delay. In re Kind LLC "Healthy and All Natural" Litig., No. 15-2645 (S.D.N.Y., entered February 11, 2019). The court previously stayed the litigation in anticipation of U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance documents on when the uses of "natural" and "non-GMO" are appropriate on food labeling. "Given that there is no reason to continue the stay on the 'non-GMO' claims and that neither party wishes to litigate the claims in piecemeal fashion, it makes sense to begin discovery," the court held. "Moreover, this Court explained that the case for lifting the 'all natural' stay would be 'substantially stronger' if the FDA failed to provide guidance by August 2018. Six months later, guidance is still awaited. It is time for this multi-district…
A California federal court has sided with In-N-Out Burgers in a lawsuit challenging whether Smashburger's Triple Double hamburger has "double the beef." In-N-Out Burgers v. Smashburger IP Holder LLC, No. 17-1474 (C.D. Cal., entered February 6, 2019). Smashburger's Triple Double, advertised as "double the beef," contains the same amount of beef as Smashburger's classic burger—five ounces—but the beef is split into two patties instead of one. The complaint alleged that Smashburger's "deceptive" advertising was likely to harm In-N-Out if consumers chose Smashburger's products over In-N-Out's based on inaccurate marketing. "[T]he claim that the Triple Double burger contains 'double the beef' as compared to the Classic Smash burger is literally false on its face," the court found. "The phrase 'double the beef in every bite' unambiguously refers to the amount of beef in the burger, rather than the number of layers of beef." The court dismissed Smashburger's argument that the "double…
