Private-label products are typically manufactured by one company for sale to the consuming public under another company's name. Create an account by providing the information below. Following the Supreme Court decision in Moseley, Congress amended the Federal Trademark Dilution Act (FDTA), effective October 6, 2006, (the "amendment") so that an owner of a famous mark can obtain an injunction against the user of a mark that is "likely to cause dilution" of the famous mark. McNeil contends that there are numerous examples of partnerships and cross-promotions in today's marketplace, and a consumer seeing the Heartland's store-brand sucralose products may believe that Splenda is making a storebrand sucralose product on behalf of the retailer, or that McNeil is sponsoring or is in some way associated with the Heartland products. As an initial matter, the 200 count box for each of the Heartland products is indistinguishable in size and shape from the 200 count Splenda box, while the 100 count Heartland box is slightly shorter and less deep than the 100 count Splenda box. Stores also employ tags on store shelves that explicitly invite consumers to compare the storebrand product with a national-brand product. Packed with essential nutrients and delicious flavor, LACTAID® is made with 100% real dairy, just without the lactose. We will address this argument after examining whether the District Court misapplied any of the other Lapp factors. Consumers have become highly aware of store-brand products. Ultra-pasteurization does not affect the taste or nutritional value of the milk. McNEIL NUTRITIONALS, LLC, Appellant v. HEARTLAND SWEETENERS, LLC;  Heartland Packaging Corp. This website is published by McNeil Nutritionals, LLC which is solely responsible for its contents. {* mergePassword *}. Inc., 30 F.3d 466, 479 (3d Cir. American consumers spend between $600 to $700 million yearly on sugar substitutes, also known as artificial sweeteners. Tate & Lyle Formally Introduces TASTEVA® Stevia Sweetener at Engredea. McNeil has devoted substantial resources to market and promote Splenda products. ), 31. Questions or comments?

Gucci Am. See Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. McNeil-P.P. at 68:5-8. Co., 50 F.3d at 205 (citing cases). {* #tradAuthenticateMergeForm *} There are two problems with this argument. Kos Pharms., Inc., 369 F.3d at 717. First, McNeil focuses it on the first Lapp factor. On appeal, McNeil does not raise any arguments with respect to the “Tastes Like Sugar” slogan or any arguments under state law, so its arguments and thus our analysis are limited to the single issue of trade dress infringement under federal law. If you do not specify a display name, your given name will be used. 389, 398 (D.N.J. About Tate & Lyle:  This website is published by McNeil Nutritionals, LLC which is solely responsible for its contents. 1(b); Def. N.), 23. ¶ 18.) This is what will be displayed publicly to other users when you write a review or blog post. The defendants-appellees Heartland Sweeteners LLC and Heartland Packaging Corp. (collectively, Heartland) package and distribute sucralose as store brands to a number of retail grocery chains. 1. (Id.
That is, some buyer classes, for example, professional buyers will be held to a higher standard of care than others. We review for clear error the District Court's determination of whether the overall impressions created by two trade dresses are similar. (Grossman Dep.

The majority of the courts of appeals, including ours, has not adopted this rule.2  Instead, we have stated that forceful and distinctive design features should be weighed more heavily because they are more likely to impact the overall impression, A & H II, 237 F.3d at 216, regardless of whether they happen to be similarities or differences.
The Third Circuit has also employed the Lapp factors in trade dress infringement actions. ), 20. By registering, you agree to receive additional communications regarding product information, promotions, newsletters and surveys from our site. Only if the movant produces evidence sufficient to demonstrate that all four factors favor preliminary relief should the injunction issue. We find, therefore, that these factors weigh in favor of finding that the Heartland products are likely to cause consumer confusion. Civil Action No. At that time, Tate & Lyle took over McNeil Nutritionals’ Sucralose manufacturing assets and responsibility for worldwide food and beverage ingredient sales, while McNeil Nutritionals, LLC retained ownership of the SPLENDA® Brand and the retail and food service business. [6] The Lapp factors to be used in a trade dress infringement case are: Id. "); see also McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 23:95 (same).

Here, it is undisputed that the buyer class does not include professional buyers, so the District Court did not need to discern a “least sophisticated buyer” within a class consisting solely of ordinary consumers. McNeil seeks a preliminary injunction against Heartland pursuant, in part, to its claim brought under Section 43(a)(1)(A) of the Lanham Act. On the lower half of the bag, there is a photograph of a piece of pie on a white plate, a bowl of cereal with raspberries, and a white scoop containing the Splenda product in its granular form. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm the denial of the motion in part and reverse in part and remand to the District Court. When we apply the clear error standard of review to these facts, we cannot say with a firm and definite conviction that the District Court made a mistake in finding that the overall impression created by the Food Lion and Safeway packages is not similar to that created by Splenda's. Even more tellingly, the case on which we relied in Ford Motor to craft the “least sophisticated consumer” doctrine in the first place, Worthington Foods, Inc. v. Kellogg Co., 732 F.Supp. However, it fails to save the District Court's conclusion on the Ahold boxes and bags. We will send you an email to confirm your registration. Plaintiff McNeil Nutritionals ("McNeil") has brought this action against Defendants Heartland Sweeteners LLC. In 1961, the company moved into its Fort Washington, Pennsylvania headquarters. Given our finding that McNeil has not satisfied the non-heightened "likelihood of success" standard, we need not address the issue of whether a heightened standard is applicable in this case.

2d at 378; World Wrestling Fed'n Entm't, Inc. v. Big Dog Holdings, 280 F. Supp. Finally, the two products are functionally equivalent.

(Sandler, 1/26/07 Tr.

All rights reserved. The products, again, are the Ahold 100 and 200-count boxes and the Ahold bags of granular sucralose. Such products are generally made with the same active ingredient as, or otherwise are similar to, the particular name-brand or national-brand product with which the private-label product competes. American Tel. Call 1-800-LACTAID (1-800-522-8243) or click here for Customer Service. The fourth and sixth factors are related and are often examined together. 2d 372, 378 n. 10 (E.D.Pa.2001). Stores develop private-label products for several reasons, including, enhancing the retailer's image, strengthening its relationship with consumers, and inspiring consumer loyalty. All Lactaid® Dairy products are gluten-free EXCEPT for the following: Didn't see your question, visit our FAQ page. (quoting AmBrit, Inc. v. Kraft, Inc., 812 F.2d 1531, 1544 (11th Cir.1986)), but a district court may weigh the sixth Lapp factor in favor of a defendant when it concludes that “the evidence of actual confusion was isolated and idiosyncratic.”  A & H II, 237 F.3d at 227;  see also Checkpoint Sys., 269 F.3d at 298;  Ziebart Int'l Corp. v. After Mkt. McNeil brought a trade dress infringement action against Heartland, alleging that Heartland's product packaging is confusingly similar to Splenda's. ), 26.

From milk to ice cream to cottage cheese, we make it easy to keep dairy in your life, Get recipes and special offers in the Dairy Scoop Newsletter, {* #userInformationForm *} § 1125(c)(1); see also Starbucks Corp. v. Wolfe's Borough Coffee, Inc., 477 F.3d 765, 766 (2d Cir.2007). Ann. Copyright © 2020, Thomson Reuters. The 100 and 200 count boxes are identical except for their size. 1255, 149 L.Ed.2d 164 (2001). 2.