Insights, key indicators and case studies that inspire creators of gastronomic experiences.
A cross-sectional survey with a representative sample of 10,000 consumers was used to assess the consumers' attitudes towards the extent to which a brand influences their purchase behaviour and their willingness to pay premium prices.
27
Perceived importance of brand
8
Willingness to pay premium for brand
On October 7, 2025, New York–based Death Wish Coffee filed a lawsuit against beverage company Liquid Death over the potential launch of coffee products. What sounds at first like a clash of edgy marketing is, in reality, a textbook example of how trademark law draws the line between creative branding and consumer confusion.
Mondelez International, the company behind Oreo, Chips Ahoy, and Ritz, has filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against Aldi’s U.S. branch. The lawsuit claims Aldi is selling knockoff products—like “Original Chocolate Sandwiches with Vanilla Filling”—that closely resemble Mondelez products in both look and packaging.
In a surprising twist, a small burger joint in Pune has emerged victorious in a legal dispute against the well-known international fast-food chain, Burger King. The court's decision, which has caught the attention of both legal experts and business owners, does not just signify a triumph for small businesses over a large corporation, but demonstrates the principles of fairness and justice in the world of commerce.
The ongoing legal dispute between McDonald's, the American fast food corporation, and Supermac's, an Irish fast food chain, has seen significant developments. The core of the dispute revolves around the trademark for "Big Mac," with Supermac's challenging McDonald's European trademark. Recent court decision has added new dimensions to this case, highlighting the complexities of trademark law and corporate strategies.
A recent trademark dispute over the term "chile crunch" has brought to light complex issues surrounding intellectual property rights, cultural heritage, and the dynamics between large corporations and small businesses. This case, involving Momofuku Goods and several independent food brands, sheds light on the numerous challenges of trademark protection in the context of culturally significant products.
In the beverage industry, a bitter legal dispute has unfolded between Thatchers, the renowned cider company, and retail giant Aldi. Thatchers' claim that Aldi's Taurus cider not only looks like but also tastes similar to its Cloudy Lemon Cider. This goes beyond typical trademark disputes, bringing up questions about taste in the courtroom. As both sides prepare for a "blind taste test," the case introduces a unique angle to the world of legal battles over product similarities.
Trademarks are vital assets that distinguish one business from another, creating a unique brand identity. A trademark infringement case can significantly impact the reputation and operations of companies involved. In a recent legal dispute, 7-Eleven, a well-known convenience store chain, is facing off against the Seven Eleven Law Group, an company that offers legal services, over the unauthorized use of the "SEVEN ELEVEN LAW" trademark. In this article we will discuss the allegations of trademark infringement, unfair competition, and more.
In the world of candy, shapes and colors play a crucial role in setting products apart from their competitors. They act as distinctive identifiers, allowing consumers to associate specific product features with particular brands. However, trademark law isn't always as sweet as the candy itself, as evidenced by the recent legal battle between PIM and Haribo over watermelon-flavored chewy candies. This case has raised significant questions about the eligibility of certain candy designs for trademark protection.
Personal jurisdiction is a crucial aspect of the legal system, determining whether a court has the authority to hear a case involving a particular defendant. In the realm of intellectual property disputes, such as trademark cases, the question of personal jurisdiction can be complex and contentious. The case of Impossible Foods, Inc. v. Impossible X, LLC offers some new insight into this legal concept.
New Zealand's long-standing battle to secure sole ownership of the 'mānuka honey' trademark has come to an end with an unfavorable outcome. The Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand announced on Monday that the country's mānuka beekeepers failed to meet the essential criteria for exclusive rights to the trademark. After nearly ten years of effort, New Zealand has been unsuccessful in preventing Australian beekeepers from utilizing the name and reaping the substantial financial benefits tied to it.
