Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-15-01445/USCOURTS-ca3-15-01445-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 

---

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

______________

Nos. 15-1445 & 15-1548

______________

SWEET STREET DESSERTS, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellee / Cross-Appellant

v.

CHUDLEIGH’S LTD.,

Defendant-Appellant / Cross-Appellee

______________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. No. 5-12-cv-03363)

District Judge: Hon. Michael M. Baylson

______________

Submitted: July 15, 2016

______________

 

Before: FUENTES, SHWARTZ, and BARRY, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: July 21, 2016)

______________

OPINION*

______________

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7, 

does not constitute binding precedent.

Case: 15-1445 Document: 003112360311 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/21/2016
2

SHWARTZ, Circuit Judge.

Two bakeries, Sweet Street Desserts, Inc., and Chudleigh’s Ltd., have filed crossappeals in this dispute concerning the scope and validity of Chudleigh’s trademark in the 

design of its single-serving fruit pastry [“Blossom Design”]. The District Court granted 

summary judgment to Sweet Street, declaring that the Blossom Design is not protectable. 

The District Court granted summary judgment to Chudleigh’s on Sweet Street’s claims of

tortious interference with contractual relations. For the reasons discussed below, we will 

affirm.

I

Chudleigh’s is an apple farm and bakery based in Ontario, Canada, which sells 

baked goods to consumers and commercial entities. In the mid-1990s, Scott Chudleigh, 

an owner of the business, began developing a “single-serve, fully baked . . . apple pie” to 

sell to restaurants, to which it already distributed multi-serving apple pies. App. 697-98. 

Mr. Chudleigh and his wife tested several possible shapes for the single-serve pies, 

settling on a round shape with six folds of pastry encircling the filling. Chudleigh’s 

registered a trademark for the six-fold pastry design, known as the Blossom Design, and 

the mark became incontestable in 2005. The following diagram is included in the 

registration:

Case: 15-1445 Document: 003112360311 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/21/2016
3

App. 887. Chudleigh’s describes the key components of the Blossom Design as:

1. A single-serving dessert item;

2. A round shape;

3. Six folds or petals of dough;

4. Such folds or petals being folded upward and around a filling;

5. Such upward folding resulting in the folds or petals partially

overlapping each other;

6. Such upward folding yielding a regular spiral pattern

resembling the shape of a blossom; and

7. Such upward folding leaving an opening at the top.

Chudleigh’s Br. at 5. Chudleigh’s makes a hand-folded version, which appears to be 

created by folding a single circular piece of dough upwards and in a clockwise direction 

around the filling, creating six pleats (left picture, below), and a machine-folded version,

which is created by folding six rounded petals upwards around the filling so that they 

overlap slightly (right picture, below).

App. 917, 919. The District Court assumed without deciding that the registered 

trademark covered both designs, and we will do the same.

Case: 15-1445 Document: 003112360311 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/21/2016
4

Chudleigh’s has distributed various versions of the Blossom to consumers and 

commercial establishments. In addition, Chudleigh’s spoke with Applebee’s about 

supplying a signature apple dessert, but never made a deal to do so. 

Sweet Street manufactures and sells desserts to restaurant chains, including 

Applebee’s, and distributors. In 2010, Applebee’s asked Sweet Street to develop a 

single-serving apple dessert for its restaurants. Sweet Street proposed a round “apple 

pocket” that consisted of a unitary, pie-like bottom with an open top covered by six

rectangular pieces of dough folded around the filling in a counter-clockwise spiral 

pattern, depicted below.

App. 526. Applebee’s liked the look of the pastry and hired Sweet Street to provide it. 

To meet Applebee’s demand, Sweet Street considered outsourcing the production 

of the dessert. To this end, Sweet Street entered discussions with Chudleigh’s, which 

sent samples for it to consider. Sweet Street declined to contract with Chudleigh’s to 

produce the dessert, citing the fact that the look of the product was different from what

Applebee’s wanted, and instead produced the dessert itself. After a limited test run, 

Applebee’s launched Sweet Street’s dessert at all 1,865 of its restaurants. It sold well.

Case: 15-1445 Document: 003112360311 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/21/2016
5

Scott Chudleigh noticed an internet story about Applebee’s new dessert and sent 

an employee to purchase a sample. Thereafter, Chudleigh’s sent a cease-and-desist letter 

to Applebee’s claiming the Cinnamon Apple Turnover infringed its registered trade dress 

in the Blossom Design because the “dessert looks strikingly similar to Chudleigh’s wellknown BLOSSOM Design, featuring the same six-fold spiral pattern.” App. 92. After 

discussions with Applebee’s, Chudleigh’s agreed to allow Applebee’s to sell its 

remaining inventory of the dessert.

Sweet Street filed suit against Chudleigh’s, (1) seeking declaratory judgments that 

its product did not infringe on the Blossom trade dress and that Chudleigh’s registered 

trademark in the Blossom Design was invalid, (2) requesting cancellation of the 

trademark, and (3) claiming tortious interference with Sweet Street’s contractual 

relationship with Applebee’s.

1

 Chudleigh’s filed counterclaims for trademark 

infringement and unfair competition. After discovery, both parties moved for summary 

judgment. The District Court granted summary judgment to Sweet Street on the

trademark-related claims, and to Chudleigh’s on the tortious interference claims.

The District Court reasoned that the Blossom Design’s key element of “six folds 

or petals of upturned dough [is] essential to contain the filling, and the number of folds or 

petals is determined in part by the size of the product,” making it functional, and 

therefore ineligible for trademark protection. App. 6. In light of this finding, the District 

 

1 Sweet Street also claimed Chudleigh’s tortiously interfered with its relationship 

with the equipment supplier Form & Frys. This claim is not before us. 

Case: 15-1445 Document: 003112360311 Page: 5 Date Filed: 07/21/2016
6

Court denied Chudleigh’s motion for summary judgment on its counterclaims as moot

and entered an order cancelling Chudleigh’s trademark registration of the Blossom 

Design.2

With respect to Sweet Street’s claims of tortious interference, the District Court 

concluded that Chudleigh’s sending of a cease-and-desist letter to Applebee’s was 

protected under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, the letter was not a sham, and thus the 

letter could not constitute tortious interference.

Chudleigh’s appeals the District Court’s ruling that the Blossom Design is 

functional. Sweet Street cross-appeals the District Court’s ruling that Noerr-Pennington

immunity protects Chudleigh’s cease-and-desist letter to Applebee’s.

II3

A

We will first consider the functionality issue. Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act 

prohibits the use of “any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination 

 

2 The District Court stayed the order pending resolution of this appeal.

3 The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, and 2201. 

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the District Court’s grant 

of summary judgment “de novo, applying the same standard that the District Court 

should have applied.” Gonzales v. AMR, 549 F.3d 219, 223 (3d Cir. 2008) (citation and 

emphasis omitted). Summary judgment is appropriate where “there is no genuine dispute 

as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 56(a). “An issue is genuine only if there is a sufficient evidentiary basis on which 

a reasonable jury could find for the non-mov[ant].” Kaucher v. Cty. of Bucks, 455 F.3d 

418, 423 (3d Cir. 2006) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 

(1986)).

Case: 15-1445 Document: 003112360311 Page: 6 Date Filed: 07/21/2016
7

thereof, . . . likely to cause confusion, or . . . mistake, or to deceive . . . as to the origin, 

sponsorship, or approval of . . . goods.” 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). This provision protects 

“trade dress,” which is the “total image or overall appearance of a product, [which] 

includes, but is not limited to, such features as size, shape, color, or color combinations, 

texture, [and] graphics.” Rose Art Indus., Inc. v. Swanson, 235 F.3d 165, 171 (3d Cir. 

2000). Only “incidental, arbitrary or ornamental product features which identify the 

product’s source” are protectable as trade dress.4 Shire U.S. Inc. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 329 

F.3d 348, 353 (3d Cir. 2003). Features that are “functional” are not protectable. See

TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Mktg. Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23, 29-34 (2001); 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1064(3) (registered trademarks are cancellable at any time if they are deemed

functional). 

“[I]n general terms, a product feature is functional, and cannot serve as a 

trademark, if it is essential to the use or purpose of the article or if it affects the cost or 

quality of the article.” TrafFix, 532 U.S. at 32 (internal quotation marks and citations 

omitted). If we do not determine that a feature is functional under this standard, we next 

ask whether affording it trademark protection would nonetheless put competitors at a 

 

4

“The purpose of trade dress protection is to secure the owner of the trade dress 

the goodwill of his business and to protect the ability of consumers to distinguish among 

competing producers.” McNeil Nutritionals, LLC v. Heartland Sweeteners, LLC, 511 

F.3d 350, 357 (3d Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). It is not 

necessarily meant to prevent the copying of product designs. See TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. 

Marketing Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23, 29 (2001) (“In general, unless an intellectual 

property right such as a patent or copyright protects an item, it will be subject to 

copying.”).

Case: 15-1445 Document: 003112360311 Page: 7 Date Filed: 07/21/2016
8

“significant non-reputation-related disadvantage” that would restrict competition in the 

market. Id. at 33. This second formulation captures the concept of “aesthetic 

functionality.” Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co., 514 U.S. 159, 169-70 (1995). 

Where the product feature meets the first test for functionality, “there is no need to 

proceed further to consider if there is a competitive necessity for the feature,” or “engage 

. . . in speculation about other design possibilities” that would satisfy the functional 

purpose of the feature. TrafFix, 532 U.S. at 33-34 (where two-spring design was 

essential to mechanism allowing road sign to withstand wind, there was no need to 

consider whether a design with three or four springs could have “serve[d] the same 

purpose”).5

A registered trade dress is presumed to be non-functional unless the alleged 

infringer demonstrates that it is functional.6 See 15 U.S.C. § 1115. Sweet Street has 

overcome that presumption and has shown the trade dress is functional. The evidence 

establishes that the “overall combination of features” that Chudleigh’s claimed to 

 

5 Chudleigh’s asserts that “the law is equally clear that it is appropriate to consider 

alternative designs to determine whether a design is functional in the first place.” 

Chudleigh’s Br. at 25 (emphasis omitted). However, the cases it cites are not binding on 

this Court and indicate that consideration of alternatives is allowed under TrafFix, but not 

required. See McAirlaids, Inc. v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 756 F.3d 307, 312 (4th Cir. 

2014); Valu Eng’g, Inc. v. Rexnord Corp., 278 F.3d 1268, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

6 By contrast, a party seeking common law trade dress protection bears the burden 

of establishing that the feature it seeks to protect is nonfunctional. TrafFix, 532 U.S. at 

32; 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(3). Thus, whether a design falls within the scope of registered 

trademark or merely within common law protection determines where the burden of 

proof is placed.

Case: 15-1445 Document: 003112360311 Page: 8 Date Filed: 07/21/2016
9

constitute the Blossom Design is functional because the shape of the dough is essential to 

the purpose of an effective single-serving fruit pie, and affects its cost and quality. Am.

Greetings Corp. v. Dan-Dee Imports, Inc., 807 F.2d 1136, 1141 (3d Cir. 1986). Scott 

Chudleigh’s own account of his creation of the Blossom Design shows that the singleserving size and round shape of the design were critical to minimizing the cost of the 

pastry and to filling a need in the restaurant industry to reduce waste and ease serving. 

Other parts of the record confirm that the number of folds or petals is driven at 

least in part by functional considerations, because the number of folds or petals must be 

proportional to the size and amount of filling in the pastry. Sweet Street presented

testimony that six folds “gave the best bake, . . . had the [least] leakage of juice, [and] 

. . . worked the best” based on its testing, App. 2007, and that while crostatas in general 

“could have any number of folds,” “[a] single serving crostata would necessarily have 

fewer” than a larger one because “[t]he number of folds generally follows the size of the 

dough, the consistency of the filling[,] and the size of the finished tart product.”7 App. 

1082. This is not contradicted by the testimony from Scott Chudleigh that the “six[-fold 

design] was the most beautiful.”8 App. 709. The fact that he found six folds to be the 

 

7 Chudleigh’s attempts to create an issue of fact by excerpting short phrases from 

the report of Sweet Street’s baking expert, describing the significance of the number of 

folds used in a crostata, are similarly unavailing, as no reasonable juror could read the 

report to refute the claim that the number of folds required bears some relationship to the 

size of the tart. 

8 Chudleigh’s argues that it is disputed whether the upward folds of the pastry 

serve to hold in the filling and maintain the pastry’s round shape because Scott Chudleigh 

Case: 15-1445 Document: 003112360311 Page: 9 Date Filed: 07/21/2016
10

most beautiful does not raise a triable issue of fact as to whether it was also particularly 

effective.9 The overall design of six folds or petals encapsulates the filling so that it 

remains inside the pastry until it is eaten.10 In short, the six-fold spiral pattern is not “an 

arbitrary flourish” on an otherwise complete dessert, “it is the reason the [shape] works” 

as a single-serving fruit dessert. TrafFix, 532 U.S. at 34. For these reasons, the District 

Court correctly concluded that the Blossom Design was functional and thus not 

protectable trade dress. 

B

We next turn to Sweet Street’s claim of tortious interference with its relationship 

with Applebee’s. The District Court ruled that Chudleigh’s cease-and-desist letter to 

Applebee’s cannot be a basis for tort liability because it is covered by the NoerrPennington doctrine, which protects parties engaged in activity incidental to the exercise 

 

testified that the Blossom is baked in a “cup” which holds the filling in during baking, 

and that the six-fold design was a “pretty way to finish the top.” App. 709-10. Sweet 

Street correctly noted that this claim is belied by indisputable photographs and video of 

the baking process showing Blossoms baked atop small pie-plates in which the sides do 

not even touch the pastry. Even assuming that the folded sides of the pastry shell are not 

necessary to contain the filling during the baking process, Chudleigh’s still has raised no

material issue of fact concerning whether the shape plays this important functional role 

after baking is completed, given that the product is not furnished to customers inside of 

any cup or container and that it can be reheated (without any container) in the microwave. 

9 Because the six-fold Blossom Design is functional, there is no need to consider 

whether five or seven folds, let alone a different shape, could also have accomplished this 

purpose. See TrafFix, 532 U.S. at 34.

10 The overlapping petals, leaving only a single hole in the top of the Blossom 

Design, also serves the function of allowing steam to escape as it is re-heated without 

having the filling ooze out of other holes.

Case: 15-1445 Document: 003112360311 Page: 10 Date Filed: 07/21/2016
11

of their First Amendment right to petition the government. Sweet Street does not contest 

that Noerr-Pennington immunity may shield pre-suit communications concerning 

trademark infringement. Rather, it argues that Chudleigh’s letter should fall under the 

“sham litigation” exception to this immunity. The Supreme Court has defined sham 

litigation as a suit that is (1) “objectively baseless in the sense that no reasonable litigant 

could realistically expect success on the merits” and (2) “conceals an attempt to interfere 

directly with the business relationship of a competitor.” Prof’l Real Estate Investors, Inc. 

v. Columbia Pictures Indus. Inc., 508 U.S. 49, 60-61 (1993) (internal quotation marks, 

alterations, and citations omitted). The objective prong is to be evaluated first, and 

“[o]nly if [the] challenged litigation is objectively meritless may a court examine the 

litigant’s subjective motivation.” Id. at 60. 

We agree with the District Court that Chudleigh’s cease-and-desist letter was an 

“objectively plausible effort to enforce rights” in this case. Id. at 65. Chudleigh’s 

possessed a registered trademark for the Blossom Design, which constitutes prima facie 

evidence that its mark was valid. See 15 U.S.C. § 1057(b). The fact that the U.S. Patent 

and Trademark Office had approved its registration, and that the product Applebee’s sold 

possessed several characteristics of the trademarked design, including a six-fold top in a 

spiral pattern, a circular shape, and individual serving size, made it objectively reasonable 

for Chudleigh’s to have pursued enforcement of its trademark. The fact that Chudleigh’s 

trademark was subsequently deemed invalid does not indicate that its assertion that it had 

Case: 15-1445 Document: 003112360311 Page: 11 Date Filed: 07/21/2016
12

an enforceable trademark was not at least plausible. See Prof’l Real Estate Investors, 508 

U.S. at 65 (noting that “[e]ven though [a copyright owner] did not survive [a] motion for 

summary judgment, [its] copyright action was arguably warranted by existing law”)

(internal quotation marks omitted). Because it was objectively reasonable for 

Chudleigh’s to send a cease-and-desist letter to Applebee’s regarding its registered 

trademark, its conduct is protected under Noerr-Pennington and the District Court 

appropriately determined that the letter could not serve as a basis for Sweet Street’s

tortious interference claim.

III

For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s grant of summary to 

Sweet Street with respect to its trademark claims, and to Chudleigh’s with respect to the 

tortious interference claim.

Case: 15-1445 Document: 003112360311 Page: 12 Date Filed: 07/21/2016