In the beverage industry, a bitter legal dispute has unfolded between Thatchers, the renowned cider company, and retail giant Aldi. Thatchers' claim that Aldi's Taurus cider not only looks like but also tastes similar to its Cloudy Lemon Cider. This goes beyond typical trademark disputes, bringing up questions about taste in the courtroom. As both sides prepare for a "blind taste test," the case introduces a unique angle to the world of legal battles over product similarities.
Importance of brand in the food & drink sector
Insights, key indicators and case studies that inspire creators of gastronomic experiences.
Key indicators on the importance of brands
A cross-sectional survey with a representative sample of 10,000 consumers was used to assess the consumers' attitudes towards the extent to which a brand influences their purchase behaviour and their willingness to pay premium prices.
Perceived importance of brand
Willingness to pay premium for brand
Trademarks are vital assets that distinguish one business from another, creating a unique brand identity. A trademark infringement case can significantly impact the reputation and operations of companies involved. In a recent legal dispute, 7-Eleven, a well-known convenience store chain, is facing off against the Seven Eleven Law Group, an company that offers legal services, over the unauthorized use of the "SEVEN ELEVEN LAW" trademark. In this article we will discuss the allegations of trademark infringement, unfair competition, and more.
In the world of candy, shapes and colors play a crucial role in setting products apart from their competitors. They act as distinctive identifiers, allowing consumers to associate specific product features with particular brands. However, trademark law isn't always as sweet as the candy itself, as evidenced by the recent legal battle between PIM and Haribo over watermelon-flavored chewy candies. This case has raised significant questions about the eligibility of certain candy designs for trademark protection.
Personal jurisdiction is a crucial aspect of the legal system, determining whether a court has the authority to hear a case involving a particular defendant. In the realm of intellectual property disputes, such as trademark cases, the question of personal jurisdiction can be complex and contentious. The case of Impossible Foods, Inc. v. Impossible X, LLC offers some new insight into this legal concept.
New Zealand's long-standing battle to secure sole ownership of the 'mānuka honey' trademark has come to an end with an unfavorable outcome. The Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand announced on Monday that the country's mānuka beekeepers failed to meet the essential criteria for exclusive rights to the trademark. After nearly ten years of effort, New Zealand has been unsuccessful in preventing Australian beekeepers from utilizing the name and reaping the substantial financial benefits tied to it.
In the midst of a legal battle with Chipotle over trademark infringement and deceptive business practices claims, Sweetgreen, the popular American fast food restaurant chain, has taken swift action to resolve the issue by changing the name of its controversial menu item.
In the realm of taco enthusiasts, the phrase "Taco Tuesday" has become synonymous with a midweek celebration of everyone's favorite Mexican dish. Recently, fast-food chain Taco Bell challenged Taco John's trademark ownership of the phrase, arguing that "it should belong to everyone." While it is true that companies can hold rights to certain trademarks, the case of "Taco Tuesday" exemplifies the delicate balance between protecting brand identity and preserving the public's right to use common phrases.
The food industry is a highly competitive marketplace where branding and packaging play a crucial role in capturing consumer attention. In 2015, Japanese confectionery company Ezaki Glico Co. Ltd. filed a lawsuit in the United States against Lotte International America Corp., alleging that Lotte's packaging of its chocolate-filled biscuit product, called "Pepero," infringed on Glico's trademark for its own similar product, "Pocky." This dispute highlights the importance of protecting trademarks in the food industry and the potential risks of creating packaging and branding that is confusingly similar to a competitor's product.
Likelihood of confusion is a critical issue in trademark disputes, as it is a claim that must be substantiated with evidence to prove infringement. In the case of PepsiCo and Rise Brewing, Rise Brewin argued that PepsiCo's use of the word "rise" in its product names and marketing materials was likely to cause confusion among consumers.
Monster Energy, the popular energy drink brand, has become well-known for their aggressive stance on protecting their trademark rights. They have been particularly vigilant when it comes to game developers using the word "Monster" in their game titles or branding. Over the years, Monster Energy has filed numerous trademark complaints against game developers for alleged infringement, claiming that the use of the word "Monster" in their games causes confusion with Monster Energy's brand.