February 5, 2018
Authored and Edited by Shayda Shahbazi; Naresh Kilaru
On January 29, 2018, the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Whole Foods and remanded on the ground that disputed issues of material fact remained in determining whether the plaintiff’s delay in filing suit against Whole Foods was reasonable.
The plaintiff, Eat Right Foods Ltd. (ERF), sold cookies under the brand “EatRight” to Whole Foods from 2004 through 2014. Starting in January 2010, Whole Foods displayed the mark “EatRight America” on various promotional materials and food products. Upon discovering Whole Foods’ use of the mark, ERF requested that Whole Foods purchase the “EatRight” brand in March 2010. In November of that year, ERF investigated further and determined that Nutritional Excellence was seeking registration of the “Eat Right America” mark for food products and had licensed the use of the mark to Whole Foods. ERF opposed Nutritional Excellence’s application at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) and the opposition proceeding lasted from October 2011 through June 2013. The TTAB sustained the opposition and refused Nutritional Excellence’s application. ERF and Nutritional Excellence ultimately reached a settlement.
ERF sent Whole Foods various cease-and-desist letters in April, November, and December 2012, and sent another cease-and-desist letter in May 2013 in view of the settlement with Nutritional Excellence. ERF then sued Whole Foods for trademark infringement in December 2013.
Whole Foods argued to the district court that ERF’s suit was barred by laches, an equitable doctrine that bars a plaintiff who has slept on its rights from taking action. The district court found that ERF’s three-year delay in filing suit was not reasonable and granted Whole Foods summary judgment on this basis. ERF appealed.
The Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded, finding that the question of whether ERF’s delay was reasonable should have been deemed a factual issue. In particular, a factfinder could determine that ERF’s delay was reasonable because ERF had been pursuing alternatives to litigation and was entitled to file suit only after it was clear that Whole Foods was not amenable to such alternatives. The Ninth Circuit also found that the district court made insufficient factual findings on whether Whole Foods had been prejudiced by the delay.
The case is Eat Right Foods Ltd. v. Whole Foods, Inc., No. 15-35524 (9th Cir. 2018).
*Shayda Shahbazi is a Student Associate at Finnegan
Copyright © 2018 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
Workshop
Life Sciences Workshop: Updates and Key Trends in Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology IP Law
May 2, 2024
Cambridge
INCONTESTABLE® Blog
April 19, 2024
At the PTAB Blog
IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in February 2024
April 16, 2024
INCONTESTABLE® Blog
April 12, 2024
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.