A consumer has filed a putative class action alleging Storck USA, L.P., maker of Werther’s, packages Original Sugar Free Chewy Caramels with nonfunctional slack fill and misrepresents the effect of maltitol syrup on blood glucose levels. Kpakpoe-Awei v. Storck USA L.P., No. 18-1086 (S.D.N.Y., filed February 7, 2018). The complaint alleges that nontransparent 2.75-ounce bags of the candy contain as much as 69 percent slack fill while comparably sized 5-ounce bags of regular Chewy Caramels contain only 33 percent slack fill. Claiming violations of New York state consumer-protection laws, false advertising and fraud, the plaintiff seeks class certification, an injunction, damages, corrective advertising and attorney’s fees.
Tag Archives candy
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.
German candy manufacturer Haribo is reportedly investigating allegations of human slavery on carnauba wax suppliers’ plantations in Brazil. According to Reuters, a German television documentary showed palm-leaf harvest workers forced to sleep outside, denied access to clean water and paid $12 a day. In June 2017, Haribo’s board posted a “Modern Slavery Statement” on its website, stating it was “absolutely committed to preventing any form of slavery and human trafficking in its corporate activities.” The statement also included a mandate for due diligence reviews of its supply chain to assess “particular product or geographical risks” of slavery.
A putative class action plaintiff has filed a lawsuit alleging that Ghirardelli Chocolate Co. puts fewer chocolates in packages of individually wrapped, single-serving chocolate squares than the number advertised on labels. Brungard v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co., No. 17-5873 (N.D. Cal., filed October 12, 2017). The plaintiff asserts that he bought chocolates in 10-, 17- and 40-count bags in various flavors “many times over several years” and allegedly found "one less individually-wrapped square in the packages he purchased.” According to the complaint, Ghirardelli told the plaintiff that the contents were based on weight rather than the printed servings on the label. Claiming violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, unfair business practices, unjust enrichment, consumer fraud, negligent misrepresentation, intentional misrepresentation and false advertising, the plaintiff seeks class certification, damages, injunctive relief, restitution and attorney’s fees.
A California federal court has limited relief to monetary damages in a lawsuit alleging that Jelly Belly Candy Co. misleads consumers into believing its Sport Beans do not contain sugar because the term "evaporated cane juice" (ECJ) appears on the label instead. Gomez v. Jelly Belly Candy Co., No. 17-0575 (C.D. Cal., entered August 18, 2017). Additional details about the case appear in Issues 629 and 638 of this Update. The court found that to pursue California consumer-protection claims, the plaintiff must establish that she had no adequate remedy at law, but she failed to do so in an amended complaint. The only injury the plaintiff alleged was that she “lost money” because she purchased the product, the court stated, limiting her relief to that alleged loss. Issue 645
A California plaintiff has filed a lawsuit alleging the Organic Candy Factory’s peach, boysenberry, blackberry and raspberry gummy candies contain “substitute flavors” rather than real fruit. Arabian v. Organic Candy Factory, No. 17-5410 (C.D. Cal., filed July 21, 2017). The plaintiff asserts that the company markets its gummy bears and gummy-filled chocolate as containing “nothing artificial ever,” leading consumers to believe the candy is made with real fruit and allowing the company to charge a premium. Claiming breach of warranties, breach of contract, fraud, misrepresentation, quasi contract and violations of California consumer-protection law, the plaintiff seeks class certification, damages, restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees. Issue 642
A federal court has denied a motion to dismiss a slack-fill complaint against Just Born, maker of Mike and Ike® and Hot Tamales® candies. White v. Just Born, No. 17-4025 (W.D. Mo., order entered July 21, 2017). The complaint alleged that consumers are likely to choose opaque, “theater-sized” boxes of the candies believing they are a good value despite allegedly containing up to 35 percent empty space. The court found that the plaintiff had pleaded sufficient facts to establish a claim under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, finding “a reasonable consumer could conclude that the size of a box suggests the amount of candy in it. . . . [t]he Court cannot conclude as a matter of law and at this stage of the litigation that the packaging is not misleading.” Moreover, Just Born’s argument that the packages’ labeling and disclosures of net weight, number of pieces of candy per…
Sugarfina, maker of “luxury boutique” candies, has filed a trademark, copyright, patent and trade dress infringement suit against Sweet Pete’s alleging the competitor relied “heavily on several design elements of Sugarfina’s distinctive packaging and marketing” of Cuba Libre®, Peach Bellini®, Fruttini, Candy Cube, Candy Concierge and Candy Bento Box® products. Sugarfina v. Sweet Pete’s, No. 17-4456 (C.D. Cal., filed June 15, 2017). Sugarfina asserts that Sweet Pete’s copied the names, “size, shape, color or color combinations, texture, graphics and sales techniques” of all six named product lines that Sugarfina packages in “museum-quality Lucite.” Sugarfina further argues that Sweet Pete’s was “a failing business prior to its radical transformation into a Sugarfina copycat.” The plaintiff seeks an injunction, treble damages, corrective advertising and attorney’s fees. Issue 639
A plaintiff’s “cursory, formulaic recitation” of her purchase of Jelly Belly Candy Co.'s Sport Beans did not include enough factual allegations to establish a claim for relief, a California federal court has ruled. Gomez v. Jelly Belly Candy Co., No. 17-0575 (C.D. Cal., order entered June 8, 2017). The plaintiff had alleged the candy maker’s use of the term “evaporated cane juice” (ECJ) on the packaging misled her about the product's sugar content. Additional details on the complaint appear in Issue 629 of this Update. “Absent from the Complaint are any factual allegations concerning the circumstances of Gomez’s purchase of the product, how she intended to use the product, whether she in fact expected a sugar-free product, whether she thought ‘evaporated cane juice’ was juice as opposed to sugar, and whether she consumed the product,” the court said, granting Jelly Belly's motion to dismiss. However, the court ruled that Gomez…
A New York federal court has denied a motion to dismiss a patent infringement and trade dress suit filed by candy maker The Topps Co. alleging that a competitor copied its Juicy Drop lollipop. The Topps Co. v. Koko’s Confectionery & Novelty, Inc., No. 16-5954 (S.D.N.Y., order entered June 7, 2017). Topps alleged that Koko’s Squeezy Squirt Pop copied a design that allows the user to spray a lollipop with flavored liquid using a two-chamber mechanism; further, Koko’s used a similar logo, font and color on the packaging and similar names for the candies’ flavors, the complaint asserted. The court’s decision followed oral arguments over whether the positioning of the chambers of the mechanism relative to the user was infringing. Topps’ attorney reportedly told the court, “It can’t be the law that just because you hold it at 90 degrees, it’s not an infringement.” See Law360, June 6, 2017. …
