American Italian Pasta Company v. New World Pasta Company
2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 11072, 71 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1046, 371 F.3d 387 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A vague, subjective claim of product superiority that cannot be empirically verified constitutes non-actionable puffery under the Lanham Act. Consumer survey evidence cannot be used to transform such a subjective statement into a specific, measurable, and actionable factual claim.
Facts:
- In 2000, American Italian Pasta Company (American) acquired the Mueller's pasta brand.
- Following the acquisition, American began placing the phrase 'America's Favorite Pasta' on Mueller's packaging.
- The packaging also included other statements, such as 'Quality Since 1867' and 'Made from 100% Semolina.'
- A competitor, New World Pasta Company (New World), sent a cease-and-desist letter to American, demanding it stop using the phrase.
- Both parties agreed that another company, Barilla, sells the most dried pasta in the United States, and that American's brands are distributed regionally, not nationally.
Procedural Posture:
- American Italian Pasta Company filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, seeking a declaratory judgment that its use of the phrase 'America's Favorite Pasta' was not false advertising.
- New World Pasta Company filed a counterclaim alleging the phrase violated the Lanham Act and state unfair competition laws.
- The district court granted summary judgment for American, concluding the phrase was non-actionable puffery as a matter of law.
- The district court dismissed New World's Lanham Act counterclaim and declined to exercise jurisdiction over the state law claims.
- New World, as the appellant, appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the phrase 'America's Favorite Pasta' on product packaging constitute an actionable false statement of fact under the Lanham Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Riley, Circuit Judge.
No, the phrase 'America's Favorite Pasta' does not constitute an actionable false statement of fact because it is non-actionable puffery. The Lanham Act prohibits false statements of fact, not vague or subjective claims of superiority upon which a reasonable consumer would not rely. The court reasoned that puffery and factual claims are mutually exclusive; a factual claim must be a specific, measurable statement capable of being proven false. The term 'favorite' is inherently subjective, vague, and lacks an empirical benchmark for verification, as it relates to being 'well liked' or 'admired,' which is distinct from quantifiable metrics like sales volume or market share. The context of other phrases on the packaging, such as 'Quality Since 1867,' either constitute puffery themselves or are verifiable but irrelevant facts that do not make the 'favorite' claim measurable. Finally, the court rejected New World's consumer survey evidence, holding that surveys cannot determine the plain meaning of words or transform puffery into a factual claim, as this would chill commercial speech and penalize advertisers for misunderstood statements rather than false ones.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the broad scope of the puffery defense against false advertising claims under the Lanham Act. It establishes that highly subjective superlative claims are generally non-actionable, even if some consumers interpret them factually. The court's explicit rejection of consumer survey evidence to define the meaning of an advertising claim sets a significant precedent, making it more difficult for plaintiffs to challenge ambiguous slogans. This ruling protects advertisers' ability to use general, boastful language and maintains a clear line between verifiably false statements and subjective opinions.
Unlock the full brief for American Italian Pasta Company v. New World Pasta Company