Call (866) 635-2689 for a free Personal Injury evaluation by attorney in your area.

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Personal Injury Law Blogs -> Food Liability Law Blog

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Personal Injury Law

: Food Liability Law Blog

Peeled, Inc. Seeks Injunction, Damages in Trademark Infringement Suit Against Peeled Fruit LLC

By Kenneth Odza

ADVERTISEMENTS

Originally posted on the Essential Nutrition Law Blog by Jonathan Stagg

Peeled, Inc. ('Peeled') www.peeledsnacks.com, a company specializing in healthy, natural snack foods including dried fruits and dry roasted nuts, recently filed a trademark infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Peeled Fruit LLC ('Peeled Fruit') www.simplypeeled.com. Peeled Fruit sells frozen soft-serve fruit, with fresh fruit toppings. Peeled alleges that Peeled Fruit is attempting to cash in on the brand awareness and goodwill associated with Peeled's marks.

Peeled began marketing its products under the marks 'Peeled,' 'Peeled Fruit,' and 'Peeled Snacks' as early as 2004. Since that time, Peeled's marks have received extensive coverage in television and print media, including receiving a coveted spot on Oprah's O List as one of Oprah's favorite afternoon snacks, and receiving the 2008 'Best of Food' award from Health Magazine. Peeled registered the mark 'PEELED SNACKS' on January 10, 2006 with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

Peeled alleges in its complaint that long after it began marketing its products with the Peeled marks, Peeled Fruit began infringing on the marks by using the words 'Peeled' and 'Simply Peeled' in its marketing materials. Peeled argues that Peeled Fruit sells similar products with similar ingredients, and that as a result the products are confusingly similar. Peeled claims that Peeled Fruit had full knowledge of Peeled's prior use of the marks, and that in spite of Peeled's requests, Peeled Fruit has refused to cease its use of the marks.

Peeled alleges that Peeled Fruit not only knew about Peeled's use of the marks, Peeled Fruit 'adopted the trademarks with the intent to trade and capitalize on the goodwill generated by Peeled, Inc.'s extensive and widespread use of its trademarks, as well as its extensive sales, advertising and consumer acceptance and recognition.' Peeled argues that the similarities between the products sold by both companies make the shared use of the marks likely to cause confusion, mistake and deception among consumers.

As a result, Peeled is seeking an injunction against Peeled Fruit, which would restrict Peeled Fruit from further use of the marks. Peeled is also seeking a monetary damage award, under federal trademark law (15 U.S.C. § 1117), in an amount equal to either 1) three times the amount by which Peeled was damaged by the alleged infringement, or 2) three times the total profits Peeled Fruit obtained from the use of the allegedly infringing marks. Finally, Peeled is seeking an order from the court, under 15 U.S.C. § 1118, requiring Peeled Fruit to destroy all materials that display the allegedly infringing marks.

Full post as published by Food Liability Law Blog on September 17, 2010 (boomark / email).