More than 80 agricultural trade and advocacy groups have sent a letter to the White House requesting immediate action to implement the Farmer Fair Practices Rules, which would allow farmers to take legal action against foreign and multinational corporate entities to challenge anti-competition practices and contracts to produce livestock and poultry. The U.S. Department of Agriculture previously announced it would not implement the rules, which had been in development since 2010 and were scheduled to take effect April 19, 2017. Signatories include farmer and rancher groups, dairy producers and organic producer associations as well as Food & Water Watch, Friends of the Earth, Slow Food USA and the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Snyder’s-Lance, Inc. has filed a lawsuit in North Carolina federal court appealing a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) ruling that found the term “Pretzel Crisps” to be generic, arguing that TTAB “failed to consider all the evidence of the public’s perception of the Pretzel Crisps brand, despite clear direction from the Federal Circuit to do so.” Snyder’s-Lance, Inc. v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc., No. 17-0652 (W.D.N.C., filed November 6, 2017). TTAB initially deemed “pretzel crisps” generic after Frito-Lay opposed Snyder's-Lance’s application for a trademark; that decision was vacated by the Federal Circuit and remanded for reconsideration. Snyder's-Lance argues that during seven years of litigation, its Pretzel Crisps brand has become a market leader and is now the “number one product in the entire ‘deli cracker’ section in which it principally competes." The complaint also asserts that “both Frito-Lay and the TTAB panel agreed that ‘pretzel crackers’ generically and appropriately…

The Scottish Government is seeking public comment on a consultation that proposes actions to improve diet and reduce obesity in Scotland. The government previously announced funding of more than $55 million over five years to limit the marketing of food high in fat, sugar and salt and provide weight-loss support for people with type 2 diabetes. The consultation, which is open through January 31, 2018, asks questions about promotions and marketing, “out of home” or restaurant eating, labeling, product reformulation and taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages or similar products. Scotland is also considering proposals to limit “junk food” advertising and provide support for small and mid-sized food manufacturers to reformulate and develop healthier products.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has announced the availability of guidelines recommending against the routine use of antibiotics in healthy animals. WHO cited a meta-analysis funded by the agency and reported in The Lancet concluding that interventions restricting antibiotic use could be effective in reducing antibiotic resistance. "Scientific evidence demonstrates that overuse of antibiotics in animals can contribute to the emergence of antibiotic resistance," a WHO representative said. "The volume of antibiotics used in animals is continuing to increase worldwide, driven by a growing demand for foods of animal origin, often produced through intensive animal husbandry.”

The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) has reportedly voted to continue allowing food grown in water-based nutrient solutions to be labeled "organic," rejecting a challenge brought by organic-food producers. The board will also allow aquaponics, which combine hydroponic systems with farmed fishing operations, but will prevent products grown with aeroponics—plants suspended in air with the roots exposed—from carrying the "organic" label. The 8-7 vote was reportedly criticized by farmers who argue that some of the benefits of organic farming are its effects on the ecosystem, while hydroponics separates plants from their natural habitats.

A California federal court has affirmed the dismissal of copyright infringement claims for lack of personal jurisdiction, holding that “a theory of individualized targeting" will not support specific jurisdiction. Axiom Foods, Inc., v. Acerchem Int’l, Inc., No. 15-56450 (9th Cir., entered November 1, 2017). Axiom Foods, Inc., which supplies organic and “chemical-free” products to food and beverage companies, filed a lawsuit in California after Acerchem International’s United Kingdom subsidiary distributed a newsletter to clients that included Axiom’s “As Good As Whey” and “Non-GMO” logos. The lower court dismissed the case, finding that Acerchem UK maintains its principal place of business in the United Kingdom and “does not conduct business in the United States," adding that no more than 10 recipients of the newsletter were located in California. Considering the jurisdictional issue, the Ninth Circuit focused on whether Acerchem UK aimed its business activities at California. In addition to the 10 identified…

Forager Project faces a putative class action alleging that its "cold-pressed" juices undergo a second, high-pressure processing, allegedly amounting to misrepresentation on the product labeling. Berger v. Forager Project, LLC, No. 17-6302 (E.D.N.Y., filed October 28, 2017) The plaintiff asserts that after the juices are cold-pressed and bottled, Forager subjects the bottles to high-pressure treatment that reduces “the biological, enzymatic and bacterial activity which existed after cold-pressing to an extent that is material to reasonable consumers.” In addition, the plaintiff alleges that Forager does not disclose this second step on its labeling, misleading consumers who want cold-pressed juice because of its “greater integrity in composition than if it were made through a centrifugal machine.” The complaint further argues that the name “Forager Project” contributes to consumer deception because “[f]oraging has traditionally referred to the gathering of food from the natural, undisturbed environment.” Claiming violations of New York consumer-protection law, false advertising,…

Researchers at the University of Surrey have evaluated the impact of "snack" labeling compared to "meal" labeling, reportedly finding that those who ate products labeled as snacks consumed “significantly more in terms of nearly all measures of food intake than those in the other conditions.” J. Ogden et al., “'Snack' versus ‘meal’: The impact of label and place on food intake,” Appetite, October 23, 2017. Eighty female subjects ate food labeled or presented as either (i) a snack to be consumed standing or eaten from a container or (ii) a meal to be eaten from a plate at a table. The research reportedly showed that subjects consumed “significantly more” chocolate and more total mass and calories when the food was labeled as a snack. The authors concluded that “label and presentation influence subsequent food intake both independently and combined which is pertinent given the increase in ‘snacking’ in contemporary culture.”

Candy company Sugarfina has filed a lawsuit alleging that Sweitzer LLC copied its “innovative, distinctive, and elegant product and packaging” as well as its "types of candy" and “protectable names.” Sugarfina, Inc. v. Sweitzer LLC, No. 17-7950 (C.D. Cal., filed October 31, 2017). Sugarfina asserts that it has approximately 140 lines of candy, presented in “museum-quality Lucite that emphasizes the artisanal and rarefied quality of a gourmet small-portion tasting experience,” and that Sweitzer copied the “size, shape, color or color combinations, texture, graphics and sales techniques” in its candy packaging and store designs. Claiming trade-dress infringement under the Lanham Act, federal and common law trademark infringement, unfair business practices, patent and copyright infringement, Sugarfina seeks damages, corrective advertising, accounting, restitution and attorney’s fees. Sugarfina filed a similar infringement claim against Sweet Pete's in June 2017.

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.

Close