Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc.
735 F.3d 735
7th Cir.2013Background
- Kraft owns the registered trademark "Cracker Barrel" for a line of packaged cheeses sold in grocery stores for decades; Kraft does not sell non‑cheese products under that mark.
- Cracker Barrel Old Country Store (CBOCS) is a restaurant chain that licensed its "Cracker Barrel Old Country Store" logo for packaged food products (hams, meats, mixes, etc.) to be sold in grocery stores (not cheese).
- Kraft sued CBOCS for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, seeking a preliminary injunction to stop CBOCS products bearing its logo from being sold in grocery stores.
- The district court granted a preliminary injunction after extensive discovery, expert evidence, and limited prior shipments (spiral hams) to grocery stores; those hams had already sold out before the injunction.
- The Seventh Circuit, reviewing for clear error on factual findings, affirmed the preliminary injunction, emphasizing likelihood of consumer confusion, overlapping channels of distribution, similarity of marks, and risk to Kraft’s goodwill.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Likelihood of consumer confusion between Kraft’s “Cracker Barrel” cheese and CBOCS grocery products | Kraft: same dominant words in marks, similar low‑cost food products, same grocery channel will cause confusion | CBOCS: logos differ, already sells foods in restaurants/country stores and online; grocery sales pose no confusion | Court: Likelihood of confusion found; overlap of marks, products, distribution supports injunction |
| Irreparable harm warranting preliminary relief | Kraft: confusion would damage goodwill and reputation in ways hard to quantify and not fully compensable | CBOCS: harm from being blocked from grocery channel and lost sales; alternative channels (website, country stores) mitigate harm | Court: Harm to Kraft (loss of goodwill/control) is irreparable; favors injunction |
| Probative value of plaintiff’s consumer survey | Kraft: survey shows substantial portion associated ham maker with cheese | CBOCS: surveys by party‑hired experts are biased and contextually weak | Court: Expressed doubts about survey reliability but found overall evidence sufficient without relying solely on survey |
| Balancing equities for preliminary injunction | Kraft: likely to succeed; denying relief risks unrecoverable goodwill loss | CBOCS: preliminary injunction harms its expansion into grocery retail | Held: Balance favors Kraft given risk of irreparable harm and uncertainty about CBOCS’s lost grocery gains |
Key Cases Cited
- L.E. Waterman Co. v. Gordon, 72 F.2d 272 (2d Cir. 1934) (trademark rights do not reach all identical uses across dissimilar products)
- Eli Lilly & Co. v. Natural Answers, 233 F.3d 456 (7th Cir. 2000) (clear‑error standard for reviewing factual findings supporting preliminary relief)
- Scandia Down Corp. v. Euroquilt, 772 F.2d 1423 (7th Cir. 1985) (deference to district court factual findings on preliminary injunction)
- Ty, Inc. v. Jones Group, 237 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2001) (likelihood of confusion analysis and role of product display/location)
- CAE, Inc. v. Clean Air Engineering, 267 F.3d 660 (7th Cir. 2001) (overlap in advertising and distribution increases confusion risk)
- Abbott Laboratories v. Mead Johnson & Co., 971 F.2d 6 (7th Cir. 1992) (framework for balancing likelihood of success and irreparable harm for preliminary injunctions)
- Omega Importing Corp. v. Petri‑Kine Camera Co., 451 F.2d 1190 (2d Cir. 1971) (confusion can transfer blame for product defects to trademark owner)
- Weinberger v. Romero‑Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305 (U.S. 1982) (standards for preliminary injunctions and equitable discretion)