ARTICLE
19 January 2018

Heartland Consumer Products Is Lachrymose Over Sucralose

B
BakerHostetler

Contributor

BakerHostetler logo
Recognized as one of the top firms for client service, BakerHostetler is a leading national law firm that helps clients around the world address their most complex and critical business and regulatory issues. With five core national practice groups — Business, Labor and Employment, Intellectual Property, Litigation, and Tax — the firm has more than 970 lawyers located in 14 offices coast to coast. BakerHostetler is widely regarded as having one of the country’s top 10 tax practices, a nationally recognized litigation practice, an award-winning data privacy practice and an industry-leading business practice. The firm is also recognized internationally for its groundbreaking work recovering more than $13 billion in the Madoff Recovery Initiative, representing the SIPA Trustee for the liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC. Visit bakerlaw.com
There are worse beats to serve on if you're a private eye.
United States Consumer Protection

Splenda producer sues Applebee’s and IHOP for faking fake sugar

Sweet Noir!

There are worse beats to serve on if you’re a private eye.

Investigators working for Heartland Consumer Products fanned out nationwide, posing as customers at Applebee’s and IHOP restaurants. Their assignment: Determine whether the restaurant chains were falsely identifying the artificial sweetener they were handing out to diners as Splenda, a sucralose-based sweetener brand owned by Heartland.

The results were grim. According to Heartland’s suit against the parent company of both chains, filed in the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, 20 out of 28 Applebee’s locations and 26 out of 34 IHOP locations were trying to pass off non-Splenda sucralose sweetener as Splenda.

The suit alleges that Applebee’s and IHOP employees confirmed to customers in person that the sweetener they offered was actually Splenda. The chains also allegedly created their own packaging for the knockoff sucralose sweetener, using a yellow packet (similar to Splenda’s) to give the false impression that the chains were merely branding Splenda with their own logos.

White Lies

Heartland pursued claims for trademark infringement, false designation of origin, unfair competition and trademark dilution. The suit claims that the Splenda brand was irreparably damaged, and that a preliminary and permanent injunction must be issued to protect Splenda’s pre-eminence in the market (it has been the leading low-calorie sweetener in the United States since 2003).

The suit also sought corrective advertising to remedy the misidentification of the chains’ sweeteners as Splenda and to inform customers that the sweeteners actually offered by the chains were manufactured in China – Splenda’s made-in-the-USA marketing being particularly important to Heartland.

The Takeaway

Heartland’s suit against the chains’ parent company, DineEquity, follows on the heels of a similar case it brought against Dunkin’ Donuts, which was settled under unknown terms in February 2017.

It remains to be seen whether Splenda gumshoes have still more restaurant chains in their sights.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More