Southern Snow Manufacturing Co. v. Snow Wizard Holdings, Inc.
829 F. Supp. 2d 437
E.D. La.2011Background
- Parties: Southern Snow Manufacturing, Parasol Flavors, and Simeon sued SnoWizard over flavor/trade name marks; SnoWizard asserted counterclaims.
- SnoWizard registered ORCHID CREAM VANILLA; Southern Snow alleged fraud in obtaining the registration and pursued related LUTPA claims.
- TTAB cancelled ORCHID CREAM VANILLA for being merely descriptive after USPTO A actions; several flavor names were found generic or unprotectable in related actions.
- Consolidated actions include claims regarding 22 SnoWizard trademarks and additional marks; plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, cancellation of registrations, and LUTPA damages.
- Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on main and false advertising claims; SnoWizard moved for partial summary judgment on false advertising; court granted SnoWizard’s motion and denied plaintiffs’ motion.
- Court set for trial on other infringement and LUTPA issues; issue of whether TM symbols attached to generic terms can constitute false statements remains central.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| whether TM/® symbolism on generic flavors constitutes false advertising under §43(a) | plaintiffs contend symbols render literally false statements constituting unfair competition | SnoWizard argues no express prohibition or literal falsehood from TM/® use; marks may be generic or descriptive | Plaintiffs fail to prove literal falsehood; summary judgment for SnoWizard on false advertising claims |
| whether use of TM/® on flavors can be a false statement as to trademark validity | plaintiffs claim TM/® imply valid trademark rights despite generic nature | TM/® use is not per se false; validity depends on secondary meaning or protectability | Not a literally false statement; TM/® use does not automatically falsify validity; claims fail on materiality/deception grounds |
| whether certain SnoWizard marks are generic and thus unprotectable | plaintiffs urge broad genericness to invalidate most marks | classification is factual/term-specific; many marks not generic on face | Global generic-labeling rejected; some marks may be generic (e.g., TIRAMISU) but others not; judgment reserved as to specificity |
| whether plaintiffs can prove materiality or deception to sustain relief | customers likely misled by TM symbols due to lack of trademark law sophistication | burden on plaintiffs to prove materiality/deception; surveys not provided | Plaintiffs’ general theory of deception lack sufficient evidence; SnoWizard’s motion granted on false advertising; plaintiffs’ motion denied on most main claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- IQ Prods. Co. v. Pennzoil Prods. Co., 305 F.3d 368 (5th Cir. 2002) (establishes elements of prima facie false advertising; materiality standards)
- Pizza Hut, Inc. v. Papa John’s Int’l, Inc., 227 F.3d 489 (5th Cir. 2000) (literal falsity triggers presumption of deception; otherwise must prove materiality)
- Seven-Up Co. v. Coca-Cola Co., 86 F.3d 1379 (5th Cir. 1996) (role of injury and irreparable harm in injunctions; framework for Lanham Act claims)
- Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Cent. Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (2003) (limits on Lanham Act reach; not all misrepresentations actionable)
- Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763 (1992) (categorization of marks along generic-descriptive-suggestive-arbitrary-fanciful continuum)
- Canfield v. Honickman, 808 F.2d 291 (3d Cir. 1986) (illustrates difficulty/classification near descriptive/generic boundary; regional variation in perception)