Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02065/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02065-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
American Italian Pasta Company
Appellee
New World Pasta Company
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-2065

___________

American Italian Pasta Company, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Western District of Missouri.

New World Pasta Company, * 

*

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: November 17, 2003

 Filed: June 7, 2004

___________

Before RILEY, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

RILEY, Circuit Judge.

“America’s Favorite Pasta”–Commercial puffery or factual claim?

American Italian Pasta Company (American) sued New World Pasta Company

(New World), seeking a declaratory judgment that American’s use of the phrase

“America’s Favorite Pasta” does not constitute false or misleading advertising under

section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B) (2000). New World

counterclaimed, asserting American’s use of “America’s Favorite Pasta” violated the

Lanham Act and many states’ unfair competition laws. On summary judgment, the

Appellate Case: 03-2065 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/07/2004 Entry ID: 1774579 
1

The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

2

American sells dried pasta under the brand names Mueller’s, Golden Grain,

Mrs. Grass, Ronco, Luxury, R & F, Global A1, Pennsylvania Dutch, and Anthony’s.

3

New World sells dried pasta under the brand names Ronzoni, San Giorgio,

Skinner, American Beauty, Light n’ Fluffy, Goodman, Mrs. Weiss, Prince, Creamette,

Monder, Albadoro, Catelli, Lancia, and Ronzoni Canada.

-2-

district court1

 concluded American’s use of “America’s Favorite Pasta” did not

violate the Lanham Act, dismissing New World’s counterclaims and declining to

exercise jurisdiction over New World’s state law claims. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

From 1997 to 2000, American2

 manufactured Mueller’s brand (Mueller’s) dried

pasta for Best Foods. In the fall of 2000, American purchased Mueller’s and assumed

all packaging, distributing, pricing, and marketing for the brand. Since purchasing

Mueller’s, American has placed the phrase “America’s Favorite Pasta” on Mueller’s

packaging. On various packages, the phrases “Quality Since 1867,” “Made from

100% Semolina,” or “Made with Semolina” accompany the phrase “America’s

Favorite Pasta.” The packaging also contains a paragraph in which the phrase

“America’s Favorite Pasta” appears. The paragraph states (1) pasta lovers have

enjoyed Mueller’s pasta for 130 years; (2) claims Mueller’s “pasta cooks to perfect

tenderness every time,” because Mueller’s uses “100% pure semolina milled from the

highest quality durum wheat;” and (3) encourages consumers to “[t]aste why

Mueller’s is America’s favorite pasta.”

New World3

 sent American a letter demanding American cease and desist using

the phrase “America’s Favorite Pasta.” Consequently, American filed this suit,

requesting a declaration that its use of the phrase “America’s Favorite Pasta” does not

constitute false or misleading advertising under the Lanham Act. In its federal

Appellate Case: 03-2065 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/07/2004 Entry ID: 1774579 
4

Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act states, in pertinent part:

-3-

counterclaim, New World asserted American’s use of “America’s Favorite Pasta”

violated the Lanham Act. New World claims American’s use of the phrase is false

or misleading advertising, because, according to New World’s consumer survey, the

phrase conveys Mueller’s is a national pasta brand or the nation’s number one selling

pasta. American and New World agree Barilla sells the most dried pasta in the United

States and American’s brands are regional.

American moved to dismiss New World’s counterclaims, arguing the phrase

“America’s Favorite Pasta” constituted non-actionable puffery. New World resisted

American’s motion and filed a motion for partial summary judgment. The district

court denied American’s motion, concluding it would have to consider facts outside

the pleadings to determine if the phrase “America’s Favorite Pasta” constituted

puffery. Two weeks later, the district court denied New World’s motion for partial

summary judgment, dismissed New World’s Lanham Act counterclaim, and declined

to exercise jurisdiction over New World’s state law counterclaims. The district court

concluded the phrase “America’s Favorite Pasta” constitutes non-actionable puffery

as a matter of law, and the phrase is not actionable under the Lanham Act. New

World appeals, contending the phrase “America’s Favorite Pasta” is not puffery, but

is a deceptive factual claim.

II. DISCUSSION

We review the district court’s summary judgment decision de novo. Interstate

Cleaning Corp. v. Commercial Underwriters Ins. Co., 325 F.3d 1024, 1027 (8th Cir.

2003). A purpose of the Lanham Act is “to protect persons engaged in commerce

against false advertising and unfair competition.” United Indus. Corp. v. Clorox Co.,

140 F.3d 1175, 1179 (8th Cir. 1998). To establish a false or deceptively misleading

advertising claim under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act,4

 New World must establish:

Appellate Case: 03-2065 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/07/2004 Entry ID: 1774579 
(1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods . . . uses in

commerce any . . . false or misleading description of fact, or false or

misleading representation of fact, which –

. . .

(B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the

nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her

or another person’s goods, services, or commercial activities,

shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she

is or is likely to be damaged by such act.

15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) (emphasis added).

-4-

(1) a false statement of fact by [American on its packaging] about its

own or another’s product; (2) the statement actually deceived or has the

tendency to deceive a substantial segment of its audience; (3) the

deception is material, in that it is likely to influence the purchasing

decision; (4) the defendant caused its false statement to enter interstate

commerce; and (5) the plaintiff has been or is likely to be injured as a

result of the false statement.

Id. at 1180 (emphasis added). The failure to establish any element of the prima facie

case is fatal. Pizza Hut, Inc. v. Papa John’s Int’l, Inc., 227 F.3d 489, 495 (5th Cir.

2000).

Under section 43(a), two categories of actionable statements exist: (1) literally

false factual commercial claims; and (2) literally true or ambiguous factual claims

“which implicitly convey a false impression, are misleading in context, or [are] likely

to deceive consumers.” United Indus., 140 F.3d at 1180. Besides actionable

statements, a category of non-actionable statements exists. Id. Many statements fall

into this category, popularly known as puffery. Id. Puffery exists in two general

Appellate Case: 03-2065 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/07/2004 Entry ID: 1774579 
-5-

forms: (1) exaggerated statements of bluster or boast upon which no reasonable

consumer would rely; and (2) vague or highly subjective claims of product

superiority, including bald assertions of superiority. Pizza Hut, 227 F.3d at 496-97;

United Indus., 140 F.3d at 1180.

Juxtaposed to puffery is a factual claim. A factual claim is a statement that “(1)

admits of being adjudged true or false in a way that (2) admits of empirical

verification.” Pizza Hut, 227 F.3d at 496 (quoting Presidio Enters., Inc. v. Warner

Bros. Distrib. Corp., 784 F.2d 674, 679 (5th Cir. 1986)). To be actionable, the

statement must be a “specific and measurable claim, capable of being proved false or

of being reasonably interpreted as a statement of objective fact.” Coastal Abstract

Serv., Inc. v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., 173 F.3d 725, 731 (9th Cir. 1999); cf. United

Indus., 140 F.3d at 1180 (noting puffery does not include “false descriptions of

specific or absolute characteristics of a product and specific, measurable claims of

product superiority”). Generally, opinions are not actionable. Coastal Abstract, 173

F.3d at 731.

Puffery and statements of fact are mutually exclusive. If a statement is a

specific, measurable claim or can be reasonably interpreted as being a factual claim,

i.e., one capable of verification, the statement is one of fact. Conversely, if the

statement is not specific and measurable, and cannot be reasonably interpreted as

providing a benchmark by which the veracity of the statement can be ascertained, the

statement constitutes puffery. Defining puffery broadly provides advertisers and

manufacturers considerable leeway to craft their statements, allowing the free market

to hold advertisers and manufacturers accountable for their statements, ensuring

vigorous competition, and protecting legitimate commercial speech.

A. “America’s Favorite Pasta” Standing Alone

The phrase “America’s Favorite Pasta,” standing alone, is not a statement of

fact as a matter of law. The key term in the phrase “America’s Favorite Pasta” is

Appellate Case: 03-2065 Page: 5 Date Filed: 06/07/2004 Entry ID: 1774579 
5

We note the outcome of this case might be different if American claimed

Mueller’s pasta was the favorite pasta of a specific person or an identifiable group.

Such a claim might be a statement of fact. For example, the claim that Mueller’s is

Judge Michael Melloy’s favorite pasta would not be puffery. Such a statement is a

factual statement that could be verified by simply asking Judge Melloy which pasta

brand is his favorite.

-6-

“favorite.” Used in this context, “favorite” is defined as “markedly popular especially

over an extended period of time.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 830

(unabridged 1961). Webster’s definition of “favorite” begs the question of how

“popular” is defined. In this context, “popular” is defined as “well liked or admired

by a particular group or circle.” Id. at 1766. By combining the term “favorite” with

“America’s,” American claims Mueller’s pasta has been well liked or admired over

time by America, a non-definitive person.5

“America’s Favorite Pasta” is not a specific, measurable claim and cannot be

reasonably interpreted as an objective fact. “Well liked” and “admired” are entirely

subjective and vague. Neither the words “well liked” nor “admired” provide an

empirical benchmark by which the claim can be measured. “Well liked” and

“admired” do not convey a quantifiable threshold in sheer number, percentage, or

place in a series. A product may be well liked or admired, but the product may not

dominate in sales or market share. For example, assume a consumer’s favorite cut of

meat is beef tenderloin. If we were to look at the sheer amount of beef tenderloin our

hypothetical consumer buys relative to other cuts of meat, beef tenderloin may not

have a sizable market share or account for a significant percentage of the amount of

money spent on meat. Therefore, we could not accurately determine whether beef

tenderloin was the consumer’s favorite cut of beef based on those benchmarks. The

fact is, the consumer may admire beef tenderloin and like it best among beef cuts, but

beef tenderloin is too expensive for our consumer to eat often. Likewise, sales

volume and total dollars spent on particular pasta brands in the United States may not

uncover America’s favorite pasta.

Appellate Case: 03-2065 Page: 6 Date Filed: 06/07/2004 Entry ID: 1774579 
-7-

“America’s Favorite Pasta” also does not imply Mueller’s is a national brand.

First, “America’s” is vague, and “America’s,” as well as “America” and “American”

used in a similar context, is a broad, general reference. Second, a brand, chain, or

product could be America’s favorite without being national. For example, an

individual restaurant or restaurant chain may be America’s favorite, but may be

located only in one or a few states. Although the restaurant chain may not be

available nationally, consumers may prefer the restaurant because of its quality of

food, quality of service, atmosphere, or some other attribute. Because “America’s

Favorite” depends on numerous characteristics, many of which may be intrinsic, a

product (be it a restaurant, grits, or pasta) need not be sold nationally to be America’s

favorite.

B. “America’s Favorite Pasta” Viewed In Context

Having decided the phrase “America’s Favorite Pasta,” standing alone, is not

a statement of fact, we consider whether the context in which the phrase is used by

American transforms it into a statement of fact. See Pizza Hut, 227 F.3d at 495 n.5

(noting the context in which a statement appears can be used to determine if the

statement is actionable under the Lanham Act). “America’s Favorite Pasta” appears

on Mueller’s packaging in two places. First, Mueller’s packaging contains the phrase

“America’s Favorite Pasta” in the following paragraph (Paragraph):

For over 130 years, pasta lovers have enjoyed the great taste of

Mueller’s. Our pasta cooks to perfect tenderness every time because it’s

made from 100% pure semolina milled from the highest quality durum

wheat. Taste why Mueller’s is America’s favorite pasta.

Second, “America’s Favorite Pasta” appears directly above “Quality Since 1867” on

some packaging, and directly above “Made from 100% Semolina” or “Made with

Semolina” on other packaging (Phrases).

Appellate Case: 03-2065 Page: 7 Date Filed: 06/07/2004 Entry ID: 1774579 
-8-

The Paragraph and the Phrases fail to transform “America’s Favorite Pasta”

into a statement of fact. The Paragraph does not suggest a benchmark by which the

veracity of American’s statement can be verified. The Paragraph generally declares

the brand has existed for 130 years, Mueller’s tastes great, cooks to perfect

tenderness, and is manufactured from high quality grain. We assume, arguendo, the

sentence “Taste why Mueller’s is America’s favorite pasta” incorporates the attributes

listed in the Paragraph into American’s claim. Two attributes listed in the Paragraph

are subject to verification: Mueller’s is made from 100% pure semolina, and the

brand is more than 130 years old. New World does not contend these claims are

false. The remaining attributes listed in the Paragraph are unquantifiable and subject

to an individual’s fancy.

Notwithstanding the incorporation of these claims into “America’s Favorite

Pasta,” the unverifiable attributes attenuate verifiable, and accurate, claims. “Taste

why Mueller’s is America’s favorite pasta” suggests all of the attributes listed in the

Paragraph are the reason Mueller’s is “America’s Favorite Pasta” and suggests each

carries equal weight. The unquantifiable attributes coupled with two verifiable

attributes do not render the phrase “America’s Favorite Pasta” subject to verification.

Similarly, the Phrases do not convey a benchmark for “America’s Favorite

Pasta.” The term “quality” is vague, entirely subjective, and a bare assertion of

product superiority. In the context used, “quality” means “inherent or intrinsic

excellence of character or type” or “superiority in kind.” Webster’s Third New

International Dictionary 1858 (unabridged 1961). The only portion of “Quality Since

1867” that can be verified is “Since 1867,” but “Since 1867” does not provide a

methodology or a reason why Mueller’s is America’s favorite. The words simply

state, accurately, when the brand was founded. Likewise, while presenting factual

claims, the phrases “Made from 100% Semolina” and “Made with Semolina” do not

define a methodology by which to ascertain the veracity of American’s claim that

Appellate Case: 03-2065 Page: 8 Date Filed: 06/07/2004 Entry ID: 1774579 
-9-

Mueller’s is “America’s Favorite Pasta.” The two phrases simply, and correctly, list

characteristics of the pasta.

C. Consumer Surveys

We now consider whether the results of New World’s consumer survey

transform the phrase “America’s Favorite Pasta” into a specific, measurable claim.

In its survey, New World asked consumers if the phrase “America’s Favorite Pasta”

conveyed a meaning. According to New World, thirty-three percent of those

surveyed allegedly perceived the phrase “America’s Favorite Pasta” to mean

Mueller’s is the number one brand. Fifty percent of those surveyed allegedly

perceived the phrase “America’s Favorite Pasta” to mean Mueller’s is a national

brand.

The Seventh Circuit confronted a similar question in Mead Johnson & Co. v.

Abbott Laboratories, 201 F.3d 883 (7th Cir.), opinion amended on denial of reh’g,

209 F.3d 1032 (7th Cir. 2000). Having concluded the phrase “1st Choice of Doctors”

conveyed more doctors prefer this product over its rivals, the Seventh Circuit

considered whether a consumer survey can assign a different meaning to a phrase.

Id. at 883-84. Mead Johnson’s survey indicated consumers perceived the phrase “1st

Choice of Doctors” to mean a majority of doctors. Concluding the district court erred

in using the survey to assign such a meaning, the Seventh Circuit noted, “never before

has survey research been used to determine the meaning of words, or to set the

standard to which objectively verifiable claims must be held.” Id. at 886. While

acknowledging dictionaries are surveys by people who devote their entire lives to

discovering the usage of words, the Seventh Circuit cogitated “[i]t would be a bad

idea to replace the work of these professionals with the first impressions of people on

the street.” Id. The Seventh Circuit reasoned that using consumer surveys to

determine the benchmark by which a claim is measured would remove otherwise

useful words from products and would reduce ads and packaging to puffery. Id. at

886-87.

Appellate Case: 03-2065 Page: 9 Date Filed: 06/07/2004 Entry ID: 1774579 
-10-

We agree with the Seventh Circuit. To allow a consumer survey to determine

a claim’s benchmark would subject any advertisement or promotional statement to

numerous variables, often unpredictable, and would introduce even more uncertainty

into the market place. A manufacturer or advertiser who expended significant

resources to substantiate a statement or forge a puffing statement could be blind-sided

by a consumer survey that defines the advertising statement differently, subjecting the

advertiser or manufacturer to unintended liability for a wholly unanticipated claim the

advertisement’s plain language would not support. The resulting unpredictability

could chill commercial speech, eliminating useful claims from packaging and

advertisements. As the Seventh Circuit noted, the Lanham Act protects against

misleading and false statements of fact, not misunderstood statements. Id. at 886.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-2065 Page: 10 Date Filed: 06/07/2004 Entry ID: 1774579