Tag Archives candy

Candy maker Fannie May faces a proposed class action alleging the confectioner underfilled some of its 7-­ounce chocolate boxes by as much as 50 percent. Benson v. Fannie May, No. 17­-3519 (N.D. Ill., filed May 10, 2017). The allegations involve boxes of Hot Fudge Truffles, Mint Meltaways , Peanut Butter Buckeyes, milk and dark Sea Salt Caramels, regular and bite­-sized Pixies , milk and dark Carmarsh and Trinidads sold at the company’s retail stores and on its website as well as other retail and online outlets nationwide. The plaintiffs allege that nonfunctional slack-­fill in the company’s nontransparent boxes violates the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act as well as Illinois consumer ­protection statutes and seek class certification, equitable relief, monetary damages and attorney's fees.   Issue 634

California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has announced a public hearing on a petition to issue regulations setting “naturally occurring” lead levels in candy containing chili or tamarind. The hearing, which will be webcast, is tentatively scheduled for June 19, 2017. Comments on the petition may be submitted by email or in writing by July 3, 2017.   Issue 633

A California plaintiff has filed suit against the makers of Jelly Belly Sport Beans claiming the candy maker’s labeling leads consumers to believe the product does not contain sugar. Gomez v. Jelly Belly Candy Co., No. 17-­0575 (C.D. Cal., filed March 24, 2017). The complaint alleges the product label says Sport Beans contain “evaporated cane juice,” but not sugar or any other “commonly known sweetener.” The plaintiff claims such labeling violates a Food and Drug Administration guidance document advising manufacturers that the term “evaporated cane juice” is not the common or usual name of any type of sweetener and that the ingredient should be listed on product labels as sugar. The plaintiff also claims Sport Beans are marketed as “energizing,” containing “quick energy for sports performance,” as well as carbohydrates, electrolytes and vitamins. For allegations of negligent misrepresentation and California consumer-­protection statute violations, the plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, damages,…

Just Born, Inc. is facing a putative class action alleging its boxes of candy are underfilled by 35 percent. Escobar v. Just Born, Inc., No. 17­-1826 (C.D. Cal., removed to federal court March 17, 2017). The plaintiff allegedly bought a box of the company’s Mike and Ike candy at a movie theater and claims Just Born is “falsely and deceptively misrepresenting” the amount of product contained in movie boxes of Mike and Ike and Hot Tamales candies it sells at movie theaters and retail outlets nationwide. The plaintiff claims that because she bought the product at a movie theater, where it was stored in a glass showcase, she paid for the product before she took possession of it and had no opportunity to inspect the packaging for “other representations of quantity of candy product contained therein other than the size of the box itself.” The plaintiff also relies on a…

Warner Brothers, the film studio that owns the rights to the Willy Wonka movies, has asked the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to stop a Georgia craft brewer’s use of “Golden Ticket” as the name for a chocolate stout beer, claiming that the name could lead some to believe the filmmaker is promoting underage drinking. Warner Bros. Entm’t Inc. v. S. Sky Brewing Co., No. 91233169 (T.T.A.B., filed March 1, 2017). In the Willy Wonka movies, children who found golden tickets tucked inside chocolate­-bar packaging won a tour of the chocolate factory and a chance to win a grand prize. Warner Brothers claims the name “Golden Ticket” is an “intent to capitalize” on the popularity of the films, alleging that Southern Sky’s beer is advertised as “reminiscent of a chocolate hazelnut candy bar and as creamy as chocolate milk,” reinforcing the “mental association”…

A consumer has filed a putative class action against Ferrara Candy Co. claiming that its packaging of Jujyfruits and other candies misleads consumers by misrepresenting the amount of candy contained in each box. Iglesias v. Ferrara Candy Co., No. 17-­0849 (N.D. Cal., filed February 21, 2017). The plaintiff claims that Ferrara “shortchanges consumers” by under­filling its opaque candy boxes. In movie theaters, where boxed candies are sold, the boxes are kept behind glass showcases, the complaint asserts, and consumers have no opportunity to examine net weight, serving disclosures or other labeling until after paying for the candy. Moreover, the plaintiff claims that consumers’ purchasing decisions are heavily dependent on product packaging and that “consumers are apt to choose the larger box because they think it’s a better value.” The action includes other candy lines manufactured by Ferrara, including Lemonhead , RedHots , Chuckles , Brach’s and Atomic Fireball products. For…

A New York federal court has dismissed a consumer’s lawsuit alleging Mondelez International sells its Sour Patch Watermelon candy with unpermitted slack fill. Izquierdo v. Mondelez Int’l Inc., No. 16-4697 (S.D.N.Y., order entered October 26, 2016). The lead plaintiff had asserted that the box he purchased contained 28 pieces of candy but had enough space for 50 pieces. Additional details about the complaint appear in Issue 609 of this Update. After finding that the plaintiff did not have standing for an injunction, the court turned to the candy company’s arguments, dismissing its assertion that the accurate net weight released it from liability. Further, the court found it inappropriate to consider at the motion-to-dismiss stage whether a consumer could determine the contents of the package by shaking or squeezing it. The court was persuaded by Mondelez’s argument that the plaintiffs had failed to state a claim because they did not clarify what…

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has extended until July 26, 2018, the deadline for posting the calorie counts of “certain gums, mints, and roll candy products” sold in glass-front vending machines, as well as for complying with type-size front-of-pack (FOP) labeling requirements. Published December 1, 2014, and effective December 1, 2016, the final rule requires businesses operating 20 or more vending machines to clearly disclose calorie counts “in a direct and accessible manner” if calories are not easily visible to prospective purchasers via FOP labeling. According to FDA, “several trade associations requested the extension for glass-front vending machines because of concerns regarding the requirements for the size of front-of-pack (FOP) calorie disclosures.” The trade associations apparently noted that “current voluntary FOP labeling programs require calorie information to be presented in a type size that ranges from 100 to 150 percent of the size of the net weight contents…

The Topps Co. has filed a patent and trade-dress infringement lawsuit against Koko’s Confectionery & Novelty Inc. alleging that Koko’s Squeezy Squirt Pop copies some features of the Juicy Drop lollipop. Topps Co. v. Koko’s Confectionery & Novelty Inc., No. 16-0595 (S.D.N.Y., filed July 26, 2016). The complaint targets Squeezy Squirt Pop’s logo, font, bright and vivid colors set against a black background, flavor names and the appearance of the word “pop” as infringing trade dress. In addition, Topps asserts ownership of a patent on “a combination lollipop candy and flavored liquid dispenser”; a Squeezy Squirt Pop “combines a lollipop with a flavored liquid in a squeeze dispenser that is then squirted into a trough-shaped cavity in the lollipop itself so that it can then be licked off.” For alleged patent infringement, trade dress infringement and a violation of the Lanham Act, Topps seeks an injunction, an order recalling the…

Close