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 –

Related news:

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

Leave a Reply