![\"\"](\"https:\/\/trademarks.harnessip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/Popcorn.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nWhether SKINNY is capable of identifying source is an\u00a0open question. \u00a0There 116 issued registrations and 69 pending applications on marks including the term “SKINNY” for food products. Only 9 of the registrations disclaim\u00a0of “skinny,” and only 10 of the applications (including all of \u00a0Kettle Foods Ltd.’s applications) disclaim “skinny.” \u00a0Lance also points out that there is at least one other SKINNY popcorn already in the market: SKINNYGIRL:<\/p>\n
If not descriptive of food, SKINNY is certainly widely used, so whether Amplify’s can show METCALFE’S SKINNY POPCORN infringes SKINNYPOP POPCORN will be interesting. Kettle Foods Ltd. will likely contend, consistent with its disclaimer of “skinny” that its use of skinny is a permitted descriptive use under 15 USC \u00a71115(b)(4). \u00a0Amplify reportedly<\/a> has $200 million in popcorn sales, so this could be a epic battle. \u00a0Get a bowl of your favorite popcorn, and pull up a chair.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" A interesting battle\u00a0has “popped” up between Amplify Snack Brands, Inc., owner of the SKINNYPOP trademark, and\u00a0Snyders-Lance, which is preparing to enter the market with METCALFE’S SKINNY POPCORN. \u00a0Amplify sued Snyders-Lance in federal court in Texas on April 11. \u00a0Amplify accused … Continue reading <\/a><\/p>\n