Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Supreme Court Upholds Lanham Act Claim in Juice Wars
Pomegranate juice is the subject of an intense legal battle between POM Wonderful, LLC (POM) and Coca-Cola Company (Coke). In its Lanham Act challenge, POM alleges that Coke's juice product's name, label, marketing and advertising mislead consumers into thinking the product is mostly a pomegranate and blueberry juice when it in fact is mostly apple and grape juice. POM further alleges that Coke's tactics have caused POM to lose sales. Coke counters that it meets Federal Drug and Cosmetics Act (FDCA) requirements for its juice name and label, and that the FDCA's regulations preclude any Lanham Act claim. The viability of the Lanham Act challenge traveled all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, and in April 2014, the Court issued its ruling on “the intersection and complementarity of two federal laws” and “whether a private party may bring a Lanham Act claim challenging a food label that is regulated by the [FDCA].” Ultimately, the Supreme Court supported POM's ability to bring its Lanham Act claims, despite the fact that Coke's product complied with the FDCA's requirements.
Factual Background
On its website, POM calls itself the “largest grower of pomegranates in the United States.” Among its offerings, the company sells “POM WONDERFUL” brand bottled pomegranate juice and a pomegranate blueberry juice blend. Its competitor, Coke, markets a “pomegranate blueberry flavored” juice. Coke's product is 99.4% apple and grape juice, 0.3% pomegranate juice, 0.2% blueberry juice, and .1% raspberry juice. The parties could not agree on the name of the product, with POM saying it is called “Pomegranate Blueberry” and Coke retorting that the full name is “Pomegranate Blueberry Flavored Blend of 5 Juices.”
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.