Ollie on Trademarks: POPSICLE et. al. v. BONESICLE

I'm Ollie. Plaintiff, Unilever, owns an extensive portfolio of over 25 trademarks ending in -SICLE such as POPSICLE, FUDGSICLE and CREAMSICLE, primarily for quiescently frozen treats but for non-food goods as well. I note in passing that the inventor, Epperson, had originally called his first creation the EPSICLE, which he re-named the POPSICLE. Defendants promote BONESICLES, a 'freezer pop dog treat.' The website claims that 'taste tests show 100% of dogs loved the flavor.' A bold claim indeed. Unilever moves under infringement and dilution theories. Unilever asserts a family of marks, that is to say, the -SICLE suffix has achieved secondary meaning, a reasonable assertion considering the popularity of POPSICLES, FUDGSICLES and CREAMSICLES among humans. But query: whither Chewy Vuitton? Complaint Unilever Koolpet //

Read more detail on Recent Advertising Law Posts –

Legal notice about the Ollie on Trademarks: POPSICLE et. al. v. BONESICLE rubric : Hukuki Net Legal News is not responsible for the privacy statements or other content from Web sites outside of the Hukuki.net site. Please refer the progenitor link to check the legal entity of this resource hereinabove.

Do you need High Quality Legal documents or forms related to Ollie on Trademarks: POPSICLE et. al. v. BONESICLE?

This entry was posted in Advertising Law and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply