Tootsie Roll Industries has filed a trademark infringement action alleging Lafayette Bay Products, LLC, doing business as Spunky Pup, illegally copied its trade dress by manufacturing and selling a product called "Tootsie Pups." Tootsie Roll Indus. LLC v. Lafayette Bay Prods. LLC, No. 21-1997 (N.D. Ill., E. Div., filed April 14, 2021). Tootsie Roll Industries alleges that the dog treats sold as Tootsie Pups are shaped and colored like Tootsie Roll Midgees, "being brown and cylindrically shaped with a length approximately two times its diameter." Further, the treats are sold in packages that allegedly echo the Tootsie Roll Midgees packaging, including "prominent wording in the same position and the same white font, the large, dark brown middle panel, and the bright stripes on each side of the panel." Tootsie Roll Industries also notes that it has licensed its marks for sale on pet items, allegedly resulting in a likelihood of…
Tag Archives candy
Kilwins Quality Confections Inc. sold chocolate and other candy products in containers that "materially overstate the volume of the contents," according to a plaintiff. Rand v. Kilwins Quality Confections Inc., No. 21-1513 (N.D. Ill., E. Div., filed March 18, 2021). The consumer argues that the company's shredded-chocolate containers "materially overstate the actual volume of, and the number of servings contained in, the containers and packaging in which they are advertised and sold and similarly materially understate the caloric content of a serving." The jars of chocolate were labeled as containing 20 servings of two tablespoons despite containing only 16 servings of that size, the plaintiff argues, and the caloric content of one serving is 140 calories rather than 110 calories as listed on the package. "While Kilwins has recently quietly corrected labeling on the mislabeled products, it has failed to compensate thousands of consumers who, over the three (3) to…
Two consumers allege that Hawaiian Host Candies, "synonymous with Hawaii," are made in Gardena, California. Toy v. Hawaiian Host Candies of L.A. Inc., No. 20-2191 (C.D. Cal., filed November 17, 2020). "Had Plaintiffs and other consumers known that the Hawaiian Host Products are not made in Hawaii, they would have paid significantly less for them, or would not have purchased them at all," the complaint alleges. The plaintiffs assert that the candy packaging intentionally misleads consumers with the candy name as well as statements such as "Hawai'i's Gift to the World," "Hawaiian Host products are made with aloha" and "Our classic confections reflect our deep connection to Hawai'i and are meant to be shared with others in the true spirit of Aloha." The packaging also includes the name of Hawaiian Host Inc. and a Honolulu address. As further evidence, the complaint cites the company's social media feeds, which share images of…
Berkeley, California, has reportedly passed an ordinance that will prevent grocery stores from displaying candy and soft drinks at the point of sale in an effort to encourage the consumption of food with more nutritional benefits, such as fruits and nuts. The ordinance, which applies to retailers with more than 2,500 square feet, states that products displayed in checkout aisles must have less than five grams of added sugars and less than 250 milligrams of sodium per serving. The ordinance will take effect March 1, 2021, with enforcement beginning in 2022.
A group of consumers has filed a putative class action asserting that Nestle USA Inc. and Ferrara Candy Co.’s opaque candy boxes contain too much slack fill. Iglesia v. Nestle USA Inc., No. 20-5971 (D.N.J., filed May 15, 2020). The complaint alleges that Ferrara and Nestle “pioneered a scheme to deceptively sell candy in oversized, opaque boxes that do not reasonably inform consumers that they are half empty. Defendants’ ‘slack-fill’ scam dupes unsuspecting consumers across America to pay for empty space at premium prices.” The complaint also features several photos of boxes with portions cut away, purportedly showing the amount of empty space in an unopened package. For alleged violations of New York, New Jersey, Michigan, Illinois, North Carolina, Texas and Florida consumer-protection statutes, the plaintiffs seek an injunction, restitution, damages and attorney’s fees.
Mondelez Canada Inc. has filed a lawsuit in California federal court alleging Stoney Patch cannabis-infused gummies infringe the trademark and trade dress of Sour Patch gummy candies. Mondelez Canada Inc. v. Stoney Patch, No. 19-6245 (C.D. Cal., W. Div., filed July 19, 2019). Stoney Patch candies, which contain tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), and Sour Patch Kids are both sold in yellow bags with green accents featuring the first word of the brand in green, all-caps sans serif type and "Patch" in the same type in orange. Where the Sour Patch Kids bag features silhouettes of the candies—colorful gummies in humanoid shapes—the Stoney Patch bag features images of a marijuana leaf. Mondelez argues that "it is inconceivable" that Stoney Patch adopted its mark without notice of the Sour Patch design and Mondelez' trademark rights to it. The company alleges federal trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, trademark dilution and unfair competition, and it seeks…
A California federal court has granted certification to a class of Mike & Ike purchasers in a lawsuit alleging that the candy boxes contain too much non-functional slack-fill. Escobar v. Just Born Inc., No. 17-1826 (C.D. Cal., W. Div., entered March 25, 2019). The plaintiff had alleged that the box of Mike & Ike candies she purchased at a movie theater contained 46 percent slack fill. Meanwhile, another California federal court denied certification to a class of consumers who purchased Gardenburger vegetarian hamburgers, finding that the damages theory proposed by the plaintiff was insufficient to calculate the amount of damages. Mohamed v. Kellogg Co., No. 14-2449 (S.D. Cal., entered March 23, 2019). The approach suggested by the plaintiff would have calculated "the percentage of the price premium" but did not include a calculation to arrive at the total amount of damages. "Plaintiff has not proposed to conduct a hedonic regression…
An Ohio federal court has granted Spangler Candy Co. a preliminary injunction in its lawsuit alleging that Tootsie Roll Industries copied the packaging of its Dum Dums candy. Spangler Candy Co. v. Tootsie Roll Indus., No. 18-1146 (N.D. Ohio, entered March 13, 2019). The court found the Dum Dums red bag not inherently distinctive, instead relying on evidence that Tootsie had intent to copy because it "specifically recognized the similarity between the violators’ color scheme, had multiple other options, and chose to proceed with the similar design anyway." The court also found that "the amount-of-sales and established-place-in-the-market weigh strongly in Spangler's favor."
Sugarfina and Sweet Pete's have reached an agreement to settle allegations that Sweet Pete's infringed Sugarfina's trademarks, copyrights, patent and trade dress by copying the "museum-quality Lucite" used to package its candies. Sugarfina Inc. v. Sweet Pete's, No. 17-4456 (C.D. Cal., settlement notice filed March 5, 2019). Under the agreement, Sweet Pete's will pay $2 million and change its packaging from the allegedly infringing cubes.
Kervan USA has agreed to change the packaging of its Sunkist fruit snacks and the shape of its candy following a lawsuit filed by Promotion in Motion Inc., which produces Welch's fruit snacks. Promotion in Motion Inc. v. Kervan USA LLC, No. 18-11670 (D.N.J., entered November 6, 2018). Kervan will change the background color of the packages for its fruit snacks to avoid confusion with packages of Welch's fruit snacks, and it will change the shape of its watermelon candies to avoid the use of the "distinctive three-dimensional trapezoid shape" of Promotion in Motion's Sour Jacks. Kervan will also sell off its existing supply of allegedly infringing products and destroy any remaining units after 90 days.
