Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Seveth Circuit Upholds Cracker Barrel Injunction
Kraft Foods is well known for its packaged cheeses sold in grocery stores, including its more than 50-year-old Cracker Barrel line. Kraft only uses its Cracker Barrel trademark for cheese.
Over 16,000 grocery and other retail stores carry Kraft's Cracker Barrel cheeses. Kraft has co-existed for 44 years with the well-known chain of low-price restaurants known as Cracker Barrel Old Country Stores (CBOCS). CBOCS, with over 620 restaurants, many along major highways, sells packaged food products such as ham, delicatessen meats, bacon, sausages, jerky, meat glazes, baking mixes, coating mixes, oatmeal, grits and gravies in its restaurants, small adjoining “country stores,” by mail order and online.
When CBOCS decided to introduce its non-cheese products into grocery stores (starting with packaged spiral ham) under a logo with “Cracker Barrel” appearing more prominently than “Old Country Store,” Kraft sued for trademark infringement and sought a preliminary injunction. The parties conducted extensive discovery and presented expert evidence (including consumer surveys), as well as live witnesses. Kraft argued that many consumers would be confused by the similar logos and, believing that the CBOCS products came from Kraft, would blame Kraft if they were dissatisfied with CBOCS' products. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted Kraft a preliminary injunction, halting sale of the CBOCS ham in grocery stores until the conclusion of the case.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.