The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has affirmed a refusal to register microbrewery 8-Bit Aleworks' application for a trademark despite an agreement between the company and 8bit Brewing Company specifying that 8bit did not object to the use. In re 8-Brewing LLC, No. 86760527 (T.T.A.B., entered October 30, 2017). The court found the consent agreement to be ambiguous and confusing as to which marks were covered by the agreement and vague as to how trade dress and packaging would distinguish the products. Further, the agreement failed to demonstrate how the companies' trade channels were different. Accordingly, the court held that “the shortcomings in the consent agreement are such that consumer confusion remains likely” and affirmed the refusal to register the mark.
Category Archives Litigation
A Massachusetts federal court has dismissed a putative class action against Conagra Brands that alleged the company’s Wesson cooking oil was not “100% natural” because it is extracted from grains grown from genetically modified organisms (GMOs), ruling the plaintiff had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Lee v. Conagra Brands, Inc., No. 17-11042 (D. Mass., entered October 25, 2017). Taking judicial notice of U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance, the court noted that the agency has “not attempted to restrict the use of the term 'natural' except for added color, synthetic substances, and flavors." In addition, the court held that according to FDA guidance, Conagra is not required to disclose on its labels the use of GMO plants. The plaintiff alleged a single count for deceptive business practices, but the court ruled that because the label conformed to FDA guidelines, it was not “unfair…
Green Crush, a retailer selling juice, smoothie and aguas frescas beverages, has filed a lawsuit alleging that a former Green Crush manager and a former contractor engaged in corporate espionage, asserting that they used the chain’s proprietary information and infringed its trademarks and trade dress to start a competing company. Green Crush, LLC v. Paradise Splash 1, Inc., No. 17-1856 (C.D. Cal., filed October 23, 2017). The complaint alleges that the manager frequently asked senior Green Crush employees about “distribution operations, specific equipment, detailed drink ingredients, the design, placement, setting and layout of drink containers and cups, and the process and recipes used” before leaving to start a competing juice store. Further, Green Crush argues, the manager and contractor solicited Green Crush employees to work for them; allegedly, some of those employees asked “if the store under construction was a [Green Crush] store because it looked just like one.” Seeking…
An Indiana federal court has granted summary judgment to Givaudan Flavors Corp. on the issue of design defect, ending a lawsuit by 27 popcorn factory workers who alleged they suffered respiratory injuries after being exposed to the company's diacetyl butter flavoring. Aregood v. Givaudan Flavors Corp., No. 14-0274 (S.D. Ind., entered October 18, 2017). Givaudan had filed a motion in limine directed to the absence of evidence or opinions regarding the alleged defective design or unreasonably dangerous condition of diacetyl, and the court asked for summary judgment briefing on the potentially dispositive issue. The court said that to show defective design under the Indiana Products Liability Act, a plaintiff “’must compare the costs and benefits of alternative designs and show that another design not only could have prevented the injury but also [is] cost-effective.’” Although the plaintiffs had obtained causation expert testimony and the court said it was “presuming without…
One day after a California resident filed a putative class action complaint against Krispy Kreme, she voluntarily dismissed the suit without prejudice with no explanation for the dismissal. Salem v. Krispy Kreme Doughnut Corp., No. 17-7487 (C.D. Cal., dismissal filed October 13, 2017). The complaint alleged that Krispy Kreme “purposefully, intentionally, and willfully” misled customers as to the sugar content and calorie count of their doughnuts. In addition, the plaintiff stated that she relied on the nutritional information provided in a store pamphlet that misleadingly advertised the chain’s apple fritter as only 210 calories per serving. The plaintiff claimed violations of California’s unfair competition and false advertising laws and the state Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
A Québec court has allowed to proceed a consumer's lawsuit alleging Sunwing Vacations Inc. misrepresented its "Champagne Service" because it served sparkling wine produced outside of the Champagne region of France. Macduff v. Sunwing Vacations Inc., No. 2017 QCCS 4540 (Québec Super. Ct., entered October 11, 2017). Sunwing argues that it uses the terms “champagne service” and “champagne vacation” to denote the level of service its hospitality packages provide rather than referring to a specific beverage served to customers. According to Canada’s National Post, about 1,600 potential class members have joined the lawsuit since it was filed.
Scotland’s Crown Office reportedly will not prosecute Errington Cheese for the death of a three-year-old linked to an outbreak of E. coli in 2016. A March 2017 Health Protection Scotland report apparently found Errington’s unpasteurized Dunsyre Blue cheese to be the “likely” source of the outbreak and the cause of the child’s death. The Crown Office reportedly concluded that the child died from complications of an E. coli infection, but it decided not to pursue criminal action. After the outbreak, a local council government banned the sale of some of Errington’s artisanal sheep’s-milk cheese, and the company reportedly plans to challenge the ban in early 2018.
A California federal court has allowed to proceed a putative class action challenging the use of “evaporated cane juice” (ECJ) on Late July Snacks LLC's product labels on the grounds that the Sherman Act does not require reliance on allegedly deceptive misrepresentation. Swearingen v. Late July Snacks LLC, No. 13-4324 (N.D. Cal., entered October 16, 2017). The plaintiffs alleged that Late July Snacks, which sells chips and cracker snacks, misled consumers by listing ECJ instead of sugar as an ingredient. The court held that because the plaintiffs had narrowed the class allegations to include only California purchasers and had standing to sue not only on products they purchased but “substantially similar” products named in the complaint, the matter could proceed on the Sherman Act and other state law claims. The court dismissed a claim for an injunction, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to allege they planned to buy the…
An Illinois federal court has dismissed part of a putative class action against Lenny & Larry's Inc., holding that the plaintiffs lack standing and that the application of 50 differing state laws is “unmanageable on a class-wide basis because those states’ laws conflict in material ways.” Cowen v. Lenny & Larry’s Inc., No. 17-1530 (N.D. Ill., entered October 12, 2017). The complaint alleged that Lenny & Larry’s advertises “The Complete Cookie” as “Plant-Based Protein to Build Lean Muscle,” labeling the cookies as vegan, non-GMO, kosher, dairy-free and soy-free without artificial sweeteners or sugar alcohols. The four-ounce cookie is advertised as containing 16 grams of protein, but the plaintiffs allege that independent testing showed the actual protein content of each cookie can vary from four to nine grams. The court held that the named plaintiffs could not establish they had sustained an injury from cookie flavors they had not purchased. “[T]he…
A Texas appeals court has held that Mark Anthony Brewing cannot produce and label a house-brand beer for TGI Friday’s restaurants because state law prohibits “overlapping” relationships among alcohol manufacturers, distributors and retailers. Texas Alcoholic Beverage Comm’n v. Mark Anthony Brewing, Inc., No. 16-0039 (Texas Ct. App., entered October 13, 2017). The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) rejected Mark Anthony Brewing's application for approval of the beer labels, which it created as part of a licensing agreement with TGI Friday's, on the grounds that Texas’ “tied-house” statutes prohibit such business relationships. Specifically, TABC found, the agreement violated the part of the administrative code providing that “[n]o application for a label shall be approved which indicates by any statement, design, device, or representation that the malt beverage is a special or private brand brewed or bottled for, or that includes the name, trade name, or trademark of any retailer permittee or…
