In a case that could have a huge impact on the marketing of generic or”store brand” products, a federal appeals court Wednesday appearedpoised to rule in favor of the manufacturer of Splenda, the nation’sbest-selling sugar substitute, in a suit against the manufacturer of ageneric version of its product for using “virtually identical”packaging.

In the suit, Splenda’s maker, McNeil Nutritionals, claimed thatHeartland Sweeteners violated trade dress law by selling its store-brandgeneric sucralose in packages that mimic Splenda’s color scheme,graphics and package sizes.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]