A couple has reportedly filed a lawsuit against the Texas Department of State Health Services alleging that “burdensome” regulations bar them from selling their canned pickled vegetables at farmers’ markets. The plaintiffs own a farm near Austin and sell vegetables locally, but when they sought to expand into sales of pickled beets, okra and carrots, they learned that Texas bars sales of all pickled vegetables except cucumbers. Under state law, bakers can sell goods at markets, fairs and festivals without becoming licensed food manufacturers. The Health Services Department has limited sales to pickled cucumbers, specifically excluding other canned pickled vegetables. State Rep. Eddie Rodriguez (D-Austin), who sponsored an amendment to the law to allow the sale of pickles, reportedly told the Texas Tribune that he did not know the department’s rules construed "pickles" to mean only pickled cucumbers. "That pickle definition is kind of flying in the spirit of the legislation,”…
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has affirmed summary judgment dismissing a putative class action alleging that Twinings North America Inc.'s teas contained fewer antioxidants than claimed on product labels, holding the plaintiff had failed to establish standing. Lanovaz v. Twinings N. Am. Inc., No. 16-16628 (9th Cir., entered June 6, 2018). The court focused on the plaintiff's statement that she would not purchase Twinings tea again even if the company changed the allegedly misleading labels. To establish standing, a plaintiff must show an imminent or actual threat of future harm, the court held, and the plaintiff’s “some day intention” of professed intent, “without any description of concrete plans, or indeed even any specification of when that some day will be—do[es] not support a finding of the ‘actual or imminent’ injury.”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has vacated the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB's) rejection of a patent application for a fruit dehydration apparatus. In re Durance, No. 2017-1486 (Fed. Cir., entered June 1, 2018). The inventors applied for a patent for a microwave dehydration container containing a rotating chamber to tumble organic materials during the drying process, but the examiner rejected it for prior art and structural identity and PTAB affirmed. The Federal Circuit found that “the Patent Office continually shifted its position” on its grounds for rejection, resulting in the applicants responding to “moving target rejections.” In addition, the court held that PTAB failed to review the applicants’ reply brief arguments, directing the board to consider them on remand and to determine whether a structural identity rejection can be used to find a prima facie case of obviousness for method claims.
U.S. Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) and Reps. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) and Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.) have introduced the Accurate Labels Act, a proposed amendment to the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act that would require information about the "chemical composition of, and radiation emitted by" a food product to be based on the "best available science." According to a press release from Moran, the bill "ensures that consumers have access to accurate and easy-to-understand product information" by (i) "[e]stablishing science-based criteria for all additional state and local labeling requirements"; (ii) "[a]llowing state-mandated product information to be provided through smartphone-enabled 'smart labels' and on websites, where consumers can find up-to-date, relevant ingredients and warnings"; and (iii) "[e]nsuring that covered product information is risk-based." "Consumers deserve full transparency on the products they’re buying, no matter where they live or shop," Kinzinger said in a statement. "Often times, due to various state laws, items are…
The European Commission has proposed rules intended to reduce the buildup of single-use plastic in oceans. The rules would ban plastic products with a readily available and affordable alternative, such as cutlery, plates, straws and drink stirrers. In addition, manufacturers "will help cover the costs of waste management and clean-up, as well as awareness raising measures" for several plastic products, including "food containers, packets and wrappers (such as for crisps and sweets)" and "drink containers and cups."
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has held that the name of German whisky Glen Buchenbach may mislead consumers into believing the product is manufactured in Scotland. Scotch Whisky Assoc. v. Klotz, No, C-44/17 (CJEU, entered June 7, 2018). CJEU clarified EU law on registered geographical indications, holding that an "indirect commercial use" can occur if the product at issue includes an element either identical or phonetically and visually similar to the registered indication but does not occur if the "element is liable to evoke in the relevant public some kind of association with the indication concerned or the geographical area relating thereto." CJEU remanded the case to German court for a final determination, which may consider a magistrate's preliminary finding that "'glen' does not have a sufficiently clear and direct link with the protected geographical indication in question."
The California Supreme Court has affirmed an appeals court ruling holding that an assessment collected to subsidize a grapes promotional campaign is constitutional and not compelled speech. Delano Farms Co. v. Cal. Table Grape Comm'n, No. S226538 (Cal., entered May 24, 2018). The growers argued that the program required them to "sponsor a viewpoint (promoting all California table grapes equally) with which they disagree" because they "believe that the table grapes they grow and ship are exceptional." The California Table Grape Commission asserted that the program was government speech rather than private speech, resulting in no free speech violation. The court concluded that the compelled grape subsidy constituted government speech, focusing on the "governmental direction and control" of the messaging. "In sum, the Commission was created by statute and given a specific mission to, among other things, promote in a generic fashion a particular agricultural product," the court held. "In…
A federal court has dismissed a lawsuit alleging that the National List's sunset review process violates the Administrative Procedures Act. Ctr. for Food Safety v. Perdue, No. 15-1590 (N.D. Cal., entered May 24, 2018). The court found that the notice promulgating the alteration of the review process was not a final action because it did not “alter any criteria or standards for the evaluation of a particular substance." The challenge further presented ripeness issues because the harms, such as the inclusion of certain compounds in organic foods, may never materialize, the court noted. The notice does not predetermine the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) decision to renew or remove a substance, the court held, and the plaintiffs are not precluded from later asserting harms from an “allegedly wrongful renewal. Plaintiffs must accordingly await that decision for the Court to properly review USDA’s actions,” the court concluded.
A federal court has denied a motion to reconsider a denial of class certification in a lawsuit alleging that Tropicana Products Inc. mislabeled its orange juice as “natural.” In re Tropicana Orange Juice Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., No. 11-7382 (D.N.J., entered May 24, 2018). The plaintiffs argued that the court misconstrued its theory of liability, gave more weight to the defendant’s expert opinions, overlooked evidence of class-wide injury and erred in its ascertainability analysis. The court ruled that because the plaintiffs “exhaustively alleged” that the juice contained added flavoring, whether the product conforms to the standard of identity for pasteurized orange juice "lies at the heart of Plaintiff’s theory of liability as articulated by Plaintiffs’ own words.” Finding the claims unsupported by the pleadings, the court found no cause for reconsideration. The court also pointed to an expert opinion showing variation in the reasoning behind consumer decisions to buy the…
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has affirmed a ruling that a Texas restaurant, “The Krusty Krab,” infringed Viacom International Inc.'s common law trademark. Viacom Int’l, Inc. v. IJR Capital Invs., No. 17-20334 (5th Cir., entered May 22, 2018). The court held that Viacom had established both use and distinctiveness of the mark because "The Krusty Krab” had been extensively and consistently licensed, establishing Viacom’s ownership of the mark as an identifier of goods and services. The court also found an impermissible likelihood of consumer confusion. Although the court noted that its ruling did not establish trademark protection “in every context” for Viacom’s mark, it affirmed the finding of the district court that Viacom had established its ownership in common law.
