Del Monte Fresh Produce Co. v. Dole Food Co., Inc.
2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8930, 136 F.Supp.2d 1271, 2001 WL 300779 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A claim for reverse palming off under the Lanham Act does not require the plaintiff to have an exclusive ownership or property right in the product, as the cause of action protects against the misrepresentation of a product's origin, not the act of copying it. Consequently, such a claim can be stated even for an unpatented product that is in the public domain.
Facts:
- Over the course of many years, Del Monte Fresh Produce Company and its predecessors developed a new variety of pineapple known as MD-2.
- Del Monte began propagating the MD-2 variety on its plantations in Costa Rica.
- In 1991, a Costa Rican farm, Cabo Marzo, which was a seller to Dole Food Company, allegedly obtained Del Monte's MD-2 plant material unlawfully from Del Monte's plantations.
- In 1995, Dole Food Company purchased the MD-2 plant material from Cabo Marzo and began propagating it.
- In 1996, Del Monte started selling the MD-2 variety in the United States under the brand name "Del Monte Gold Extra Sweet."
- In 1999, Dole began selling pineapples developed from the MD-2 plant material throughout the United States under the brand name "Dole Premium Select."
- Dole represented to the pineapple trade that its "Dole Premium Select" was a "new, super sweet" pineapple variety that Dole itself had developed.
Procedural Posture:
- Del Monte Fresh Produce Company sued Dole Food Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, a federal trial court.
- The complaint alleged four counts: (I) reverse palming off under the Lanham Act, (II) misappropriation of trade secrets, (III) conversion, and (IV) deceptive and unfair trade practices.
- Dole filed a motion to dismiss the complaint based on the doctrine of 'forum non conveniens', arguing the case should be heard in Costa Rica.
- Dole also filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
- Alternatively, Dole filed a motion to transfer venue to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
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 a company state a claim for reverse palming off under the Lanham Act by alleging a competitor is selling a pineapple variety the company developed and falsely marketing it as its own creation, even if that pineapple variety is unpatented and in the public domain?
Opinions:
Majority - Gold, District Judge
Yes. A company can state a claim for reverse palming off under the Lanham Act even if the product at issue is unpatented and in the public domain, because the claim targets misrepresentation of origin, not the act of copying. The court reasoned that ownership is not an element of a reverse palming off claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). Unlike trademark or copyright infringement, the statute allows any party who reasonably believes they will be damaged to bring a suit. The dispositive question is whether the plaintiff has a 'reasonable interest to be protected,' which is satisfied by being the originator of the product. The Lanham Act's purpose in this context is to prevent unfair competition in marketing, not to regulate manufacturing or copying. Therefore, while Dole may have been within its rights to produce a pineapple from the unpatented MD-2 variety, it could still be liable for falsely representing to the public that it was the developer of that variety. The court dismissed the claim but granted leave to amend because Del Monte failed to specifically plead the elements of consumer confusion and harm.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that the Lanham Act's protection against reverse palming off is broader than patent or copyright law, focusing on the marketing and representation of a product's source rather than exclusive rights to the product itself. It establishes that originators of unpatented products, including agricultural innovations, have a viable cause of action against competitors who not only copy the product but also falsely claim credit for its development. This ruling provides a significant avenue for protecting investments in research and development for items that may not qualify for, or have not obtained, formal patent protection, shifting the legal battleground from the right to copy to the right to truthful attribution in the marketplace.
Unlock the full brief for Del Monte Fresh Produce Co. v. Dole Food Co., Inc.