The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has ruled that H.J. Heinz Co. Brands did not violate the Metchup trademark when it introduced a poll letting consumers choose the name of its mayonnaise-ketchup blend, which ultimately chose "Mayochup" as the winner but included "Metchup" as an option. Perry v. H.J. Heinz Co. Brands LLC, No. 20-30418 (5th Cir., entered April 12, 2021). The district court found no likelihood of confusion between Heinz' "convenient, yet perhaps gratuitous, mixture" and the plaintiff's product, which has sold about $170 worth of either mayonnaise-ketchup or mustard-ketchup blends "from the lobby of a nine-room motel adjacent to his used-car dealership in Lacombe, Louisiana." The appeals court found that the Metchup name was one of more than 90 suggestions submitted by consumers in Heinz' poll on what the mayonnaise-ketchup combination should be called, which also included, as the court noted, "Saucy McSauceface, an apparent…
Tag Archives Louisiana
The owner of a trademark on "Metchup" has filed an infringement suit alleging that H.J. Heinz Co.'s "Mayochup" is "confusingly similar" to his protected trademark. Perry v. H.J. Heinz Co. Brands, No. 19-0280 (E.D. La., filed January 14, 2019). The plaintiff has purportedly used the "Metchup" mark to sell his ketchup-mayonnaise and mustard-mayonnaise combinations since 2010, and he asserts that Kraft Heinz Co. has infringed on his trademark by using a mark that "bears a particularly strong phonetic similarity to Plaintiff's mark. Depending on pronunciation and/or regional dialect, the marks are virtually indistinguishable from one another." The complaint further cites Google search results for "metchup," which direct searchers to the Heinz website, as evidence that consumers are confusing the two marks. The plaintiff seeks an injunction, destruction of infringing materials, damages and attorney's fees for allegations of counterfeiting, trademark infringement, false designation of origin and violations of Louisiana's business codes.
A consumer has filed a putative class action in Louisiana federal court against several California wineries alleging that their products contain “dangerously high” levels of arsenic, echoing a similar lawsuit filed in California in March 2015. Crespo-Bithorn v. The Wine Grp. Inc., No. 15-1424 (M.D. La., filed April 20, 2015). The complaint alleges that the wineries “sell and distribute wine to consumers at inorganic arsenic levels significantly higher than what the State of California considers the maximum acceptable limit for safe daily exposure” and asserts that the advertising and marketing of each wine was deceptive because it failed to warn of the arsenic levels. The plaintiff seeks national and state class certification and damages for the Louisiana cause of action of redhibition as well as alleged violations of Louisiana consumer protection statutes and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Details about the March lawsuit appear in Issue 559 of this Update. …
According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the owner and operator of a long-term residential treatment facility for chemically dependent women and their children has agreed to pay $125,000 to the estate of an employee allegedly terminated from her position because she was severely obese. EEOC v. Res. for Human Dev., Inc., No. 10-03322 (E.D. La., consent decree entered April 10, 2012). Additional information about the court decision denying the employer’s motions for summary judgment and recognizing obesity as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) appears in Issue 421 of this Update. EEOC also indicated that under the consent decree, the employer will “provide annual training on federal disability law to all human resources personnel and corporate directors of RHD [Resources for Human Development] nationwide.” The agreement further requires the company to report to EEOC “for three years on all complaints of disability discrimination and…
Denying an employer’s motions for summary judgment in an employment discrimination suit, a federal court in Louisiana has determined that severe obesity, regardless of its basis, qualifies as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act. EEOC v. Res. for Human Dev., Inc., No. 10-03322 (E.D. La., decided December 7, 2011). The court did not decide whether the employer had terminated the obese employee’s employment because she was regarded as disabled, finding that the matter presented a genuine issue of fact to be decided by a jury. The employee, now deceased, weighed more than 400 pounds when she was hired by the defendant, which owned and operated a long-term residential treatment facility for chemically dependent women and their children. Some eight years later, the employee was terminated from her position; at the time, she weighed 527 pounds. She filed a discrimination claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging…
More than 200 farm workers from Ecuador, Panama and Costa Rica have reportedly filed seven lawsuits against commercial banana growers and pesticide manufacturers, seeking to recover damages and medical monitoring costs for health conditions allegedly related to dibromochloropropane (DBCP) exposure. Aguilar v. Dole Food Co., Inc., No. __ (E.D. La., filed June 1, 2011). The complaints argue that defendants used DBCP from approximately 1960 to 1985—“and possibly into the 1990s”—in banana growing regions outside the United States, which banned the nematocide in 1979 after the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) listed it as a suspected carcinogen. Plaintiffs claim that because they were not informed of the danger or provided with protective clothing, they injected DBCP into soil without the use of gloves, protective covering or respiratory equipment to prevent skin absorption or inhalation. “Many workers absorbed so much DBCP each day that their urine would give off the smell of the chemical…
The Louisiana Senate Commerce Committee has reportedly rejected a bill (S.B. 128) that would have prohibited the sale of certain high caffeine beverages to youth younger than age 16. Introduced by State Senator Robert Adley (R-Benton), the bill defined an energy drink as “any drink, except coffee, that contains at least five milligrams of caffeine per fluid ounce.” Affected drinks purportedly included Red Bull, Rockstar and Full Throttle. According to a news source, committee members were concerned the legislation would start a trend of creating restrictions on specific products and place a regulatory burden on retailers. “If we outlaw these drinks, we’re going to be up here for 10 years outlawing Twinkies, Milky Ways, whatever,” said State Senator Danny Martiny (R-Kenner). See The Times-Picayune, April 22, 2010.
A putative class action has been filed in a federal court in Louisiana against CVS Caremark Corp., alleging that the company “has a long history of selling out-of-date medications, baby formula, and food.” Cooper v. CVS Caremark Corp., No. 10-331 (E.D. La., filed February 5, 2010). The named plaintiff, who claims she purchased an expired over-the-counter (OTC) medication from a CVS store, seeks to certify a nationwide class of persons who likewise purchased expired products and asks the court for injunctive relief and compensatory damages. The complaint alleges that the expired OTC medications are “adulterated” under Food and Drug Administration guidelines and that their sale violates the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The plaintiff also claims that expired OTC drugs, food and baby formula “are unmerchantable and unfit for ordinary use.”
After Food and Drug Administration (FDA) investigators found rodent infestation, “insanitary” conditions, poor employee hygiene, and violations of hazard analysis critical control point regulations at a food plant in Louisiana, it dispatched U.S. Marshals to seize tuna salad sandwiches and other food products, totaling more than $72,000 in value. While no illnesses have apparently been linked to consumption of the sandwiches produced by the Bearden Sandwich Company, Inc., the FDA has reportedly pledged to act “swiftly and aggressively” against processors and manufacturers that do not comply with food safety rules. According to an agency spokesperson, “When FDA investigators find violations inside a company’s facility, we will do what is necessary to keep insanitary and potentially harmful products out of consumers’ hands.” See FDA News Release, August 7, 2009.
