Bowring v. Sapporo U.S.A., Inc.
234 F. Supp. 3d 386
| E.D.N.Y | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Antonia Bowring sued Sapporo U.S.A., Inc., alleging its marketing and labeling create the misleading impression that Sapporo beer sold in the U.S. is a Japanese import, when it is brewed in La Crosse, Wisconsin or Guelph, Ontario.
- Packaging and marketing at issue: slogans (e.g., "The Original Japanese Beer"), Japanese-themed imagery including a trademarked North Star, and use of the word "Imported" on bottles brewed in Canada; labels also include statements identifying the actual brewing location in contrasting font on the can/bottle (e.g., "Brewed and bottled by Sapporo Brewing Company, La Crosse, WI").
- Bowring purchased Sapporo in New York (2013–2015), alleges she would not have paid the same price had she known the beers were not brewed in Japan, and seeks class relief under NY GBL §§ 349 and 350, plus fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment claims.
- Defendant supplied label images and government documents (TTB COLAs, trademark registrations); the court took judicial notice of those documents.
- District court considered whether the label disclosures, combined with the marketing, would mislead a reasonable consumer and whether plaintiff pleaded common-law claims with required particularity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sapporo's marketing and labels violate NY GBL §§ 349 and 350 by creating a misleading impression of Japanese origin | Sapporo’s front-of-package marketing and Japanese imagery lead reasonable consumers to believe the product is brewed in Japan; back/side disclosures are too small or insufficient | Labels clearly and accurately disclose brewing origin (WI or Canada) in visible contrasting font; "Imported" applies only to Canadian-brewed product; heritage imagery/trademarks do not override clear disclosures | Dismissed — a reasonable consumer would not be misled because the accurate, visible origin disclosures defeat the deception claim |
| Whether general heritage imagery and trademarks (e.g., North Star) constitute misrepresentation of origin | Imagery and slogans ("Original Japanese Beer") convey Japanese origin and mislead | Imagery references company history and trademark; not statements of current origin; disclosures clarify origin | Dismissed — heritage imagery is eclipsed by clear origin disclosures |
| Whether fraud and negligent misrepresentation pleaded with required particularity | Bowring alleges false representations about origin caused economic injury | Defendant argues no actionable misrepresentation; pleading fails Rule 9(b) particularity as to intent and reliance | Dismissed — plaintiff failed to allege actionable misrepresentation or the particularized facts required for fraud/negligent misrepresentation |
| Whether unjust enrichment claim should survive as alternative remedy | Claim pleaded in the alternative to other causes of action | Claim duplicates the tort claims and rests on same facts | Dismissed as duplicative and improper alternative to pleaded tort claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleadings under Rule 8)
- Ruotolo v. City of New York, 514 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 2008) (court construes factual allegations in plaintiff’s favor on motion to dismiss)
- Orlander v. Staples, Inc., 802 F.3d 289 (2d Cir. 2015) (reasonable consumer standard for NY GBL consumer deception)
- Fink v. Time Warner Cable, 714 F.3d 739 (2d Cir. 2013) (court may decide as a matter of law that alleged practice would not mislead a reasonable consumer)
- Forschner Group, Inc. v. Arrow Trading Co., Inc., 30 F.3d 348 (2d Cir. 1994) (disclaimers and labeling can prevent a finding of geographic or origin-based deception)
- Pernod Ricard USA, LLC v. Bacardi U.S.A., Inc., 653 F.3d 241 (3d Cir. 2011) (accurate, unambiguous label statements can prevent consumer confusion despite evocative branding)
- Turtur v. Rothschild Registry Int’l, Inc., 26 F.3d 304 (2d Cir. 1994) (fraud requires allegations that defendant intended third-party misrepresentations to reach plaintiff)
- Fin. Guar. Ins. Co. v. Putnam Advisory Co., LLC, 783 F.3d 395 (2d Cir. 2015) (elements required for fraud under New York law)
- Hydro Investors, Inc. v. Trafalgar Power Inc., 227 F.3d 8 (2d Cir. 2000) (elements of negligent misrepresentation under New York law)