Anonymous Airline Pilot v. General Foods Corporation
31 NY 2d 56, 286 NE 2d 257 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For an idea to be considered a protectable property right for which compensation may be due, it must be both novel and original; no promise to pay for an idea's use will be implied or enforced if it lacks these elements.
Facts:
- In February 1965, a plaintiff wrote to defendant General Foods Corporation, stating he had an idea to increase Jell-O sales to children.
- General Foods sent the plaintiff an "Idea Submittal Form" (ISF).
- On the ISF, the plaintiff suggested packaging Jell-O for children under names like "wig-l-e" or "wiggle-y," noting his children associated the name with the dessert's wiggling quality.
- The plaintiff also claims to have sent two handwritten letters suggesting the name "Mr. Wiggley."
- In a letter dated March 8, 1965, General Foods informed the plaintiff it was not interested in his suggestion.
- In July 1965, General Foods introduced a new children's Jell-O product named "Mr. Wiggle."
- Prior to the plaintiff's submission, General Foods had used variations of the word "wiggle" in its advertising, including the phrase "all that wiggles is not jell-o" in a 1959 TV commercial and "wigglewam" in a 1960 newspaper ad.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff sued General Foods Corporation in the New York Supreme Court, Special Term (the trial court) for misappropriation of an idea.
- The plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on liability, and the defendant cross-moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint.
- The trial court denied both motions.
- The case was appealed to the Appellate Division (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's order.
- The Appellate Division then granted leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals (the state's highest court) on a certified question.
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 submission of an idea that is not novel or original create an enforceable right to compensation when the recipient later uses a similar concept?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Fuld
No. No promise to pay for the use of an idea may be implied, and no asserted agreement enforced, if the elements of novelty and originality are absent. The court reasoned that a property right in an idea is based entirely upon these two elements. Here, the plaintiff's idea to use a word descriptive of Jell-O's most obvious characteristic—its wiggling—was found to be lacking in novelty and originality. Furthermore, the record established that General Foods had utilized variations of the word "wiggle" in its advertising years before the plaintiff's submission, such as in a 1959 television commercial. Because the idea was neither novel nor original, and because the defendant had previously used the concept, General Foods was free to use the name "Mr. Wiggle" without any obligation to compensate the plaintiff. The court also found no factual issue requiring a trial, as discovery showed that the employees who developed the "Mr. Wiggle" name did so independently and had no access to the plaintiff's submitted idea.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the strict requirement of novelty and originality for an idea to be legally protectable as property under New York law. It establishes that a mere suggestion, especially one that is descriptive or already contemplated by the recipient, does not create a right to compensation. The ruling makes it significantly harder for plaintiffs to succeed in idea-misappropriation cases, as they must prove their idea is truly unique and not in the public domain or part of the defendant's prior independent work. This precedent protects companies from liability for using common or obvious concepts that may have been submitted by the public.
