Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co. facts for kids
Quick facts for kids Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co. |
|
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued October 10, 1938 Decided November 14, 1938 |
|
| Full case name | Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co. |
| Citations | 305 U.S. 111 (more)
59 S. Ct. 109; 83 L. Ed. 73; 1938 U.S. LEXIS 1137
|
| Prior history | Case dismissed in favor of defendant, Delaware district court, 1935; dismissal upheld, Circuit Court of Appeals, 1936; upon rehearing, dismissal vacated and mandate sent to district court, Circuit Court of Appeals, 1936; certiorari denied, U.S. Supreme Court (302 U.S. 733, 58 S.Ct. 120); injunction entered per mandate in favor of plaintiff, 1938, Delaware district court; mandate "clarified", Circuit Court of Appeals, 1938; certiorari granted, U.S. Supreme Court, 304 U.S. 586, 58 S.Ct. 1052. |
| Holding | |
| After a patent expires or becomes invalid, the patent holder cannot use unfair competition law to prevent a rival from selling goods of the same shape under the same (non-trademarked) name. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Brandeis, joined by Hughes, Stone, Roberts, Cardozo, Black, Reed |
| Dissent | McReynolds, joined by Butler |
Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co. was an important case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1938. The Court had to decide if the Kellogg Company could make and sell its own Shredded Wheat cereal. This cereal looked very similar to the one made by the National Biscuit Company (later known as Nabisco).
The main question was whether Kellogg was breaking any trademark or unfair competition laws. The Supreme Court decided that Kellogg was allowed to sell its version. This was because Nabisco's original patents for Shredded Wheat had expired. Also, the name "Shredded Wheat" could not be a trademark because it was a common description of the product. This case showed that once a special right, like a patent, ends, others can freely use the invention.
The Story Behind the Cereal
How Shredded Wheat Began
The story of Shredded Wheat started with an inventor named Henry Perky. He created a machine to make shredded wheat cereal. He introduced his new cereal in 1893. In 1895, he received patents for both the cereal and the machine. A patent is a special right given to an inventor. It means only they can make, use, or sell their invention for a certain time.
Even though John Harvey Kellogg once joked that the cereal was like "eating a whisk broom," it became very popular. Perky's company, the Shredded Wheat Company, continued to make the cereal.
Kellogg's Enters the Market
The Kellogg Company started making its own shredded wheat cereal in 1912. This was after Perky's patents had expired. When the Shredded Wheat Company complained, Kellogg stopped making it in 1919.
However, Kellogg started making shredded wheat again in 1927. This led to another lawsuit from the Shredded Wheat Company. That lawsuit was settled. In 1930, the Shredded Wheat Company was bought by the National Biscuit Company, which later became Nabisco.
Nabisco's Lawsuit Against Kellogg
Nabisco then sued Kellogg again. They claimed Kellogg was competing unfairly. Nabisco had three main complaints:
- Kellogg was using the name "Shredded Wheat."
- Kellogg's cereal biscuits had the same pillow shape as Nabisco's.
- Kellogg's cereal box showed a picture of two shredded wheat biscuits in milk, similar to Nabisco's.
Nabisco said Kellogg was trying to "pass off" its cereal as Nabisco's. This means they thought Kellogg was trying to trick customers into thinking they were buying Nabisco's product. Before this, Nabisco had tried to register "Shredded Wheat" as a trademark. But the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office said no. They said "Shredded Wheat" was just a description, not a unique brand name.
The Supreme Court's Decision
Why Kellogg Won
The U.S. Supreme Court heard the case. In a 7-2 decision, the Court sided with Kellogg. Justice Brandeis wrote the main opinion. The Court said Kellogg could keep making its shredded wheat cereal and call it "Shredded Wheat."
The Cereal's Shape
The Court looked at the shape of the cereal. They decided that the pillow shape was "functional." This means the shape was important for how the cereal worked or was made, not just for its looks. Since the patent for the shape had expired, anyone had the right to copy it. If companies could stop others from using a functional shape after a patent ended, it would make it hard for new companies to compete.
The Picture on the Box
Nabisco also complained about the picture on Kellogg's box. But the Court noted that the name "Kellogg" was very clear on all of Kellogg's boxes. This meant there was little chance customers would get confused. So, Kellogg was not trying to "pass off" its cereal as Nabisco's.
The Name "Shredded Wheat"
Finally, the Court ruled that "Shredded Wheat" was a "generic" term. This means it's a common name for a type of product, like "bread" or "milk." You can't trademark a generic term. Nabisco also argued that the name had gained a "secondary meaning," where people thought of it as only Nabisco's product. But the Court disagreed.
Justice Brandeis explained that Kellogg was indeed benefiting from the popularity of "Shredded Wheat." This popularity was built by Nabisco's predecessor through skill and advertising. However, the Court said this was not unfair. Sharing in the success of a product not protected by a patent or trademark is a right for everyone. It also helps the public by encouraging competition.
The Dissenting Opinion
Two justices, Justice McReynolds and Justice Butler, disagreed. They believed Kellogg was unfairly trying to take advantage of the good reputation Nabisco had built. They thought this should be against the law.
What Happened After the Case
Impact on Trademark Law
The Kellogg case became very important for something called the "functionality doctrine." This idea means that if a product's design is necessary for it to work, it cannot be protected by trademark laws. If it could, it would stop other companies from making similar products.
In 1938, when Kellogg was decided, trademark law was still developing. The U.S. Department of Justice even wanted to make the Kellogg decision an official part of the Lanham Act. This is a major law about trademarks in the United States.
One expert said that the Kellogg case showed that even if a company spent a lot of money on a product, they don't control its shape or common name once patents expire. As long as a company isn't lying or tricking customers, they can use ideas that are no longer protected.
