A New York federal court has issued a decision seemingly aiming to spur action from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which has purportedly exhibited “no discernible activity” to establish a definition of “natural.” In re Kind LLC “Healthy and All Natural" Litig., No. 15-2645 (S.D.N.Y., entered March 2, 2018). Kind LLC previously filed motions to dismiss or stay claims in multidistrict litigation alleging that its labeling was false and misleading. After allowing stays, the court has indicated that it might proceed with the case without waiting for input from FDA or the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) on the definitions of "healthy" and "natural." The court first found that the consumers' challenge to Kind's claim that its products are made without genetically modified organisms (GMOs) was not preempted by the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard, holding that the relevant state consumer-protection statutes “do not impose a GMO standard or requirement.…
Category Archives Litigation
Washington State University (WSU) has filed a lawsuit alleging Phytelligence Inc., a WSU horticulture professor's company, sold an apple cultivar to a third party, breaching a propagation contract and infringing the university’s patent. Wash. State Univ. v. Phytelligence Inc., No. 18-0361 (W.D. Wash., filed March 8, 2018). WSU allegedly agreed to allow Phytelligence, which aims to commercialize technology for soilless tissue cultures and ripening chemistries, to propagate the cultivar that produces the Cosmic Crisp apple, WA 38. The complaint alleges that although the contract forbade Phytelligence from transferring or selling the cultivar, the company has sold WA 38 trees to at least one grower. The complaint also asserts that after the cultivar was patented, WSU allowed a nonprofit association to grant licenses for propagation and sale of the trees; Phytelligence allegedly inquired about obtaining a licence but did not apply for one. In addition, Phytelligence previously filed a lawsuit against…
An Illinois court has refused to dismiss Gold Medal Products Inc.'s lawsuit alleging that Bell Flavors and Fragrances Inc., with the help of a former Gold Medal employee, misappropriated trade secrets. Gold Medal Prods. Inc. v. Bell Flavors & Fragrances Inc., No. 17-4084 (N.D. Ill., entered March 2, 2018). Gold Medal alleged that its recipe and flavor profile for caramel Glaze Pop, a popcorn coating, are trade secrets, which the defendants allegedly misappropriated when the former employee helped Bell Flavors create a similar product for one of Gold Medal’s competitors. Denying Bell’s motion to dismiss, the court declined to establish whether Gold Medal could prove it owned trade secrets because the record was insufficient to support an analysis. The court rejected Bell’s argument that the recipe and flavor profile are not trade secrets because the ingredients are publicly listed and not patented by Gold Medal. Further, differences in the manufacturing…
BFY Brands, Inc., maker of Our Little Rebellion snacks, faces a potential class action alleging that its one-ounce bags of popcorn contain up to 54 percent slack fill. Reaves v. BFY Brands, Inc., No. 18-2065 (S.D.N.Y., filed March 7, 2018). The plaintiff alleges that he bought bags of Popcorners products—including Smokin’ Jalapeño White Cheddar, Sweet Heat Chili and Sweetly Salted Caramel—but did not receive the amount he expected based on the size of the packages. Claiming violations of New York consumer-protection laws, deceptive and unfair trade practices, false advertising and fraud, the plaintiff seeks class certification, injunctive relief, damages, corrective advertising and attorney’s fees.
A consumer has filed a putative class action alleging that Brew Dr. Kombucha misleadingly advertises its products as containing “billions” of probiotic bacteria. Bazer v. Brew Dr. Kombucha, No. 2018-2943 (Ill. Chancery Ct., Cook Cty., filed March 5, 2018). The plaintiff asserts that he bought several bottles of kombucha in different flavors because he heard about the benefits of the beverage and the probiotic bacteria it purportedly contains. According to the complaint, tests showed that the product contained about 50,000 bacterial colonies rather than the "billions" advertised on the bottle’s label. Claiming violations of consumer-protection laws, breach of warranties and unjust enrichment, the plaintiff seeks class certification, disgorgement and attorney’s fees.
A California court has denied a motion to dismiss a putative class action alleging the label of Frito-Lay North America Inc.'s Lay's salt-and-vinegar-flavored potato chips fails to specify whether the vinegar flavoring is natural or artificial. Allred v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc., No. 17-1345 (S.D. Cal., entered March 7, 2018). The plaintiff couple filed similar lawsuits against Kellogg and Frito-Lay concurrently in July 2017, and Kellogg's motion to dismiss was denied in February 2018. The court held that the suit is not preempted by U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulations and found plausible the allegation that a reasonable consumer might be deceived by the Lay's labeling.
A federal court in California has denied a motion to dismiss a putative class action alleging false advertising of Kellogg Co.'s Pringles Salt & Vinegar chips, finding the plaintiffs adequately pleaded all elements of the complaint, including reasonable customer confusion and claims under state consumer-protection laws. Allred v. Kellogg Co., No. 17-1354 (S.D. Cal., entered February 23, 2018). The court rejected Kellogg’s arguments that the plaintiff failed to prove that the company uses artificial flavoring and that the suit was filed as a means to test whether their “guess” was correct during discovery. The court found that the plaintiffs specified “in great detail the distinction between the natural and artificial versions of the ingredients from how they are made to how they are distinguished on a label. Moreover, Allred did allege which version Kellogg uses in its products.” The court also found that the plaintiffs adequately pleaded a violation of the…
An Illinois federal court has dismissed without prejudice a putative slack-fill class action against chocolatier Fannie May Confections Brands, Inc., ruling the plaintiffs provided only “bare-bones” factual allegations and failed to allege a violation of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act that would allow their state law claims to avoid preemption. Benson v. Fannie May Confections Brands, Inc., No. 17-3519 (N.D. Ill., entered February 28, 2018). The court also dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim for injunctive relief, finding they lacked standing because they failed to adequately allege a risk of future harm. “[A]lready aware of Fannie May’s alleged deceptive practices, Plaintiffs cannot claim they will be deceived again in the future," the court held. In addition to the products they did purchase—Fannie May’s Pixies and Mint Meltaways—the plaintiffs also alleged that packages of eight other chocolate candies contained slack fill and brought the action on behalf of consumers who purchased…
The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) has ruled that Pan American Properties Corp. cannot register “White Sangriiia” as a trademark because both terms, as well as their combination, are “merely descriptive.” In re Pan American Props., Corp., No. 86556214 (T.T.A.B., entered February 26, 2018). TTAB also rejected the company’s argument that the term was “fanciful or suggestive.” Although Pan American Properties referred to its previous registration of the “fanciful” term “Gasolina Sangriiia” for prepared cocktails in its appeal, TTAB noted that neither the company nor the examining attorney included the registration in the application record before the appeal was filed, and TTAB refused to take judicial notice of “registrations residing in the Office.” Finally, TTAB found insufficient evidence to prove the term “sangriiia” had acquired distinctiveness; even if Pan American Properties had provided enough evidence to prove five years of sales, the board held, that period is not long enough…
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has filed a lawsuit alleging Chicago Meat Authority Inc. discriminated against African-Americans, resulting in multiple violations of U.S. civil rights statutes. U.S. Equal Opportunity Emp’t Comm’n v. Chicago Meat Authority, Inc., No. 18-1357 (N.D. Ill., filed February 22, 2018). EEOC alleges that the processor (i) failed to recruit or hire African-Americans because of their race; (ii) engaged in hiring practices that caused a disparate impact on the basis of race; (iii) fired an employee based on his race and in retaliation for engaging in a protected activity; (iv) subjected African-Americans to a hostile work environment that included frequent racial epithets and slurs as well as other offensive comments based on race; and (v) failed to take action to remedy the alleged harassment. EEOC seeks injunctive relief, an order that the defendant provide equal employment opportunities regardless of race and protected activity, back pay, front…
