Juice Maker Pursues Rivals Fresh Off of Court Victory

0

Lynda and Stewart Resnick’s Roll Global agribusiness conglomerate, fresh from its U.S. Supreme Court victory over Coca-Cola Co. for the way a drink was marketed, has unleashed a flurry of legal actions against much smaller companies over the way their products are marketed.

So much so that Roll is attacking one company for using the word “wonderful,” which Roll uses extensively, and another for using a name vaguely resembling its POM brand name.

Roll, a West L.A. umbrella company that houses the Wonderful line of snacks – including Wonderful Pistachios and Wonderful Almonds – and POM Wonderful pomegranate juice, said it wants to protect brands it has spent years – and tens of millions of dollars – developing.

In June, the Supreme Court ruled that Roll’s POM could proceed with its case against Coke in which it is accusing the soft-drink giant falsely advertising its “Pomegranate Blueberry Flavored Blend of Five Juices,” because less than 1 percent is pomegranate juice, which is more expensive than other juices.

Although the ruling was a procedural one, and not based on the merits of POM’s main argument, it apparently has emboldened POM to pursue attacks on other companies.

In a late July filing with the Patent and Trademark Office, lawyers for POM urged the board to prevent Arizona sugar producer Zucrum Foods from using the word “wonderful” in a promotional slogan.

Zucrum, a family-owned business, plans to market its line of sugar products called Zulka using the slogan “Zulka. Naturally Wonderful.” POM said in its filing that such a use would deceive consumers and make it appear POM is affiliated with the product. Its filing said that if consumers find “any defect, objection or fault” in the sugar products, it “would necessarily injure” POM’s reputation.

“Whoever heard of anyone claiming the exclusive right to the commercial use of the word ‘wonderful’?” said Ted Parker, Zucrum’s counsel. He said trademark law doesn’t permit exclusive rights to ordinary words.

“‘Wonderful’ is a generic word,” he said. “A trademark for ‘POM Wonderful’ doesn’t mean that another company can’t say ‘Ford Wonderful’ or ‘Tide Wonderful.’”

Smaller businesses often accuse larger companies of “trademark bullying” after they’re asked to stop using a certain trademark. The effort can backfire: The patent office has been known to side with smaller companies if it finds a bigger competitor has made claims it views as unreasonable.

Officials of Roll declined comment.

POM to Pomona

Parker said POM is likely full of confidence from its victory at the Supreme Court and that may have prompted its most recent disputes.

In another complaint filed with the trademark board two weeks ago, POM sought to stop South Korean coffee supplier Kaffa Co. from obtaining a trademark for its “Pomona” brand coffee- and fruit-flavored syrups, sauces and powders. POM lawyers claimed “Pomona” is too similar to POM.

The Kaffa complaint echoes a similar claim filed with the board in July. In that case, POM argued that an application by John Y. Kim, a Palo Alto man who applied to trademark “Pomanex” for dietary supplements, also infringed on the POM trademark. The cases are still pending.

But Dan Silverman, a partner in the L.A. office of Venable, said the recent filings are business as usual for the Resnicks. He was previously associate general counsel at Roll’s in-house law firm.

“They’re just actively pursuing and protecting their trademarks on all their brands,” he said.

Additionally, POM is fighting another dispute regarding its own advertising. The Federal Trade Commission ruled last year that the company’s advertisements claiming certain health benefits are deceptive. That case is pending before a federal appeals court.

No posts to display