A New York City deli has filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking a declaration that it has not infringed the trademark of an Arizona-based restaurant by selling an “Instant Heart Attack Sandwich” and planning to sell a “Triple Bypass Sandwich.” Lebewohl v. Heart Attack Grill LLC, No. 11-3153 (S.D.N.Y., filed May 10, 2011). According to the plaintiff, who owns the 2nd Avenue Deli, the Arizona eatery threatened to sue the deli in a March 29, 2011, letter, claiming that the deli’s use of these terms for its menu items violated the defendant’s Lanham Act rights. The Heart Attack Grill has purportedly registered the trademarks “Heart Attack Grill,” “Triple Bypass Burger” and other “Bypass” marks. The New York deli claims that it has been selling its “Instant Heart Attack Sandwich,” which consists of two large potato pancakes with a choice of deli meats, and accompanied by matzo ball soup, since…
Tag Archives restaurant
Taco Bell has requested that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals review a district court determination that three insurance companies are not required to provide coverage under commercial liability policies for economic loss allegedly arising from decreased patronage in the wake of a 2006 E. coli outbreak. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. Ready Pac Foods, Inc., No. 09-3220 (C.D. Cal., appeal filed May 11, 2011). The district court reportedly issued an order granting a request for certification of the economic loss claim and stayed its adjudication of other unresolved matters to allow Taco Bell to take an interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit. According to the lower court, “The lost patronage claim presents a legal issue that is unique and distinct from the other types of loss for which Taco Bell seeks a declaration of coverage . . . such as claims for bodily injury, claims for…
The Alabama House of Representatives has passed a bill (HB193) that would prohibit people from filing lawsuits against establishments such as restaurants or grocery stores for selling them food that allegedly made them fat. The Commonsense Consumption Act, approved May 3, 2011, by a 75-20 vote, bars “civil actions against manufacturers, packers, distributors, carriers, holders, sellers, marketers, or advertisers of food products that comply with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements based on claims arising out of weight gain, obesity, a health condition associated with weight gain or obesity, or other generally known condition caused by or allegedly likely to result from long-term consumption of food.” Spearheaded by Representative Mike Jones (R-Andalusia), the bill is headed for debate in the Alabama Senate.
Taco Bell® has launched a nationwide public relations campaign calling for an apology from the law firm that voluntarily dismissed a lawsuit alleging that the company misrepresented the beef filling in its taco and burrito products. Obney v. Taco Bell Corp., No. 11-00101 (C.D. Cal., notice of dismissal filed April 18, 2011). Additional information about the putative class action appears in Issue 379 of this Update. The company apparently launched the campaign “to make sure consumers know that it has not changed products, ingredients or advertising despite what the Beasley Allen law firm has claimed.” According to a news source, the firm said, “From the inception of this case, we stated that if Taco Bell would make certain changes regarding disclosure and marketing of its ‘seasoned beef’ product, the case would be dismissed.” Taco Bell® asks the attorneys, “Would it kill you to say you’re sorry?” See Taco Bell® News Release,…
McDonald’s Corp. has filed a motion to dismiss a putative class action seeking to stop the company from advertising and selling to children its allegedly “unhealthy Happy Meals” with toys. Parham v. McDonald’s Corp., No. 11-00511 (N.D. Cal., motion filed April 18, 2011). Details about the lawsuit appear in Issue 375 of this Update. The company contends that the plaintiff lacks standing to sue under the unfair competition law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act or false advertising law and argues that the complaint is the Center for Science in the Public Interest’s “attempt to distort state consumer protection law beyond recognition” to stop McDonald’s from selling Happy Meals containing toys in California. According to the motion, the plaintiff does not allege physical harm, reliance on the company’s advertising (that is, “Plaintiff does not allege that her own children saw any particular advertisement or made a single purchase from McDonald’s”), or identify…
New York City Council Member Leroy Comrie (D) has introduced a bill (Int. No. 530) that would ban toy giveaways in restaurant meals deemed high in calories, sodium and fat. Amending the city’s administrative code “in relation to setting nutrition standards for distributing incentive items aimed at children,” the bill mirrors a similar San Francisco measure set to go into effect in December 2011. Comrie’s proposal would require establishments that offer toys with meals to make sure the food contains less than 500 calories, 600 milligrams of sodium and 35 percent of calories from fat. A half cup of fruit or vegetables and one serving of a whole-grain product must be included in the meal. Violators would be subject to fines ranging from $200 to $2,500. “While I recognize that ensuring children have access to, and eat more, nutritious meals is ultimately the responsibility of their caretakers, the City Council…
The Sisters of St. Francis of Philadelphia, who hold about $2,000 of common stock in McDonald’s Corp., joined by nuns from orders in other states, have reportedly submitted a shareholder proposal seeking a report “within six months of the 2011 annual meeting, assessing the company’s policy responses to public concerns regarding linkages of fast food to childhood obesity, diet-related diseases and other impacts on children’s health.” They also want to know how these public concerns potentially affect “the company’s finances and operations.” The “whereas” clause of the proposal contends that “the contribution of the fast food industry to the global epidemic of childhood obesity and to diet-related disease, such as diabetes, cancer and cardiovascular disease, have become a major public issue,” and cites a number of studies about the incidence and costs of obesity, as well as actions taken by policymakers involving fast food marketing to children and menu-labeling. The…
The Arizona House of Representatives Commerce Committee has reportedly approved a bill (H.B. 2490) that would block cities and counties from enacting laws that would prohibit restaurants, food establishments or convenience stores from offering “consumer incentive items” with meals. Scheduled to go before the House for a full vote, the law identifies the items as “any licensed media character, toy, game, trading card, contest, point accumulation, club membership, admission ticket, token, code or password for digital access, coupon, voucher, incentive, crayons, coloring placemats or other premium or prize or consumer product.” Telling a news source that “government needs to stay out of the way of free enterprise,” Representative Jim Weiers (R-Glendale) challenged arguments that toy giveaways tied with high-fat, high-calorie meals contributed to childhood obesity. “Ask the parents who are supposed to be ultimately responsible,” he said. But House Minority Leader Chad Campbell (D-Phoenix) asserted that the issue should be…
Highlighting the California lawsuit that seeks to stop McDonald’s from marketing “Happy Meals” to children, a March 2011 Inside Counsel article cautions corporate counsel to pay attention to such litigation, because, frivolous or not, the case marks a growing national focus on health and governmental initiatives to impose reforms on the food industry. Additional information about the case appears in Issue 375 of this Update. Author and managing editor Ashley Trent quotes Shook, Hardy & Bacon Agribusiness & Food Safety Co-Chair Madeleine McDonough, who questioned whether the lawsuit could be certified as a class. “There are so many individual issues,” she said. “What kind of advertising did [putative class members] actually see? What’s the proof that they actually relied on the advertising? What are the reasons they ate at McDonald’s? What did they eat? What kind of control did the parents exercise?” Other legal experts questioned the strength of the lawsuit’s substantive…
A recent study claims that teenagers notice but ultimately disregard calorie counts on fast-food menu boards, ordering the same number of calories as they did before New York City’s mandatory labeling laws took effect. B. Ebel, et al., “Child and adolescent fast-food choice and the influence of calorie labeling: a natural experiment,” International Journal of Obesity, February 2011. In a follow-up to a 2009 study, New York University researchers collected survey and receipt data from “349 children and adolescents aged 1–17 years who visited the restaurants with their parents (69%) or alone (31%) before or after labeling was introduced.” The findings evidently showed “no statistically significant differences in calories purchased before and after labeling,” although 9 percent of the subjects reported that calorie information influenced their purchasing decisions. In addition, 70 percent said that taste, followed by cost, was the most important factor in their choices, and the majority underestimated…
