Hot Dogs and Chips: A Legal DramaBy Susan BeckMay 22, 2009A Sweet 'False Marking' Suit?By Susan BeckMay 22, 2009Hot Dogs and Chips: A Legal DramaBy Susan BeckMay 22, 2009If hot dogs and chips were on your menu this weekend, you might want a quick update on two controversies surrounding these picnic staples. Last week Sara Lee picked a fight with Kraft Foods over the superiority of their competing franks. Sara Lee, which makes Ball Park franks, claims that Kraft has willfully run false ads touting its Oscar Mayer dogs. In a suit filed Wednesday in Chicago federal court, Sara Lee points to Kraft ads that assert that Oscar Mayer hot dogs beat Ball Park franks in taste tests. Sara Lee, which proclaims itself the "unquestioned leader in sales of beef hot dogs," claims these taste tests are flawed and unreliable. The plaintiff also takes aim at Kraft's claim that the Oscar Mayer franks are "100 percent pure beef," alleging that more than 20 percent of the foodstuff consists of non-beef ingredients. The company asks for relief under the federal Lanham Act, which prohibits false advertising, as well as under various Illinois state laws, including its consumer fraud statute. It's seeking an injunction against the false claims, corrective advertising, and treble damages. Sara Lee is represented by Charles Cole of Chicago's Schuyler, Roche & Crisham, as well as Richard J. Leighton of Washington, D.C.'s Keller and Heckman. We called Kraft to see if they'd lined up counsel for this case, but we were told the company's headquarters was closed Friday. Looks like they had their grills fired up early.Meanwhile, on the other side of the Atlantic, a British court has decided that Proctor & Gamble's Pringles are in fact potato chips, and as such, subject to the country's 17.5 percent VAT. (The item was earlier reported on the TaxProf Blog.) Last year, Britain's High Court had decided that Pringles aren't potato chips and escape the tax. But on May 20, a court of appeals reversed, holding that this "savory snack product" contains more than enough potato content tobe a chip. At stake was more than £100 million of past taxes, and about £20 million annually going forward.Proctor & Gamble was represented by Christopher Vajda and Raymond Hill of London's Monckton Chambers. The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs were represented by Roderick Cordara and Edward Brown of Essex Court Chambers.A Sweet 'False Marking' Suit?By Susan BeckMay 22, 2009After you've had your fill of hot dogs (whether Oscar Mayer or Ball Park) and chips (Pringles or standard crisps), you might decide it's time to reach for the Sweet'N Low. You might also notice a patent number on that little pink packet. But did you know that patent expired more than 20 years ago? Do you care?Joe Mullin at The Prior Art Blog describes a recent lawsuit (see third item) that accuses Cumberland Packing, which makes the sweetener, of "false marking" for continuing to stamp the patent number on the packets. The suit, which can be viewed here, was brought this month by the Public Patent Foundation, which describes its mission as fighting"undeserved patents and unsound patent policy." (PPF is one of the plaintiffs that filed the high-profile suit challenging the Patent and Trademark Office's practice of granting patents on portions of the human genome.)The federal false marking law provides for a $500 fine per offense. Daniel Ravicher, the PPF's executive director, told Mullin that he thinks it's "pretty clear” that the damages should be applied to every packet of Sweet'N Low sold since the patent expired. We can't even begin to imagine how much money that might be. Ravicher adds, though, that the suit isn't about money--it's about protecting the public. "False marking is a harmful thing," says Ravicher. "That's not what I think, that's what Congress thinks." David Garrod, counsel to PPF, is also representing the foundation, along with Ravicher.The court docket does not yet list any lawyers for
View Full Document
Unlocking...