La Victoria Foods v. Curtice-Burns

No. C85-1557MTB (1986)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

La Victoria Foods v. Curtice-Burns

United States District Court for the Western District of Washington
No. C85-1557MTB (1986)

Facts

[Ed.’s note: The casebook excerpt presents inly the court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.] La Victoria Foods (plaintiff) owned the trademark SALSA SUPREMA, under which it sold Mexican-style salsa since 1968. In 1986 La Victoria Foods’ salsa sales were projected to surpass $7,000,000 per year. Curtice-Burns began using the LA SUPREMA trademark for its tortilla chips and its Mexican-style salsa in 1984. Both La Victoria Foods’ product and Curtice-Burns’s products were sold in the same geographic region and the same grocery stores. La Victoria Foods’ SALSA SUPREMA-marked dip was sold in the section of the stores where Mexican products were placed. Curtice-Burns’s LA SUPREMA-marked products were sold in the section of the stores that contained snacks and chips. Both salsas were marketed as dips. La Victoria Foods offered evidence regarding a survey that it sponsored. The survey was created to assess actual confusion between the two trademarks. For La Victoria Foods’ survey, shoppers were intercepted at random as they entered three grocery stores in the Seattle-Tacoma area. Shoppers were offered $2 if they would purchase the product that the interviewer verbally asked them to buy. One hundred fifty-three shoppers were instructed to purchase La Victoria Foods’ SALSA SUPREMA, and 150 shoppers were instructed to buy Curtice-Burns’s LA SUPREMA. Then respondents returned to the interviewer and showed the product they purchased. The interviewer documented whether the shoppers purchased the products they were asked to buy. The study showed the rate of actual confusion between the products was 11.9 percent. The confusion was present regardless of the product shoppers were asked to buy. Additionally, the designer of the survey, Dr. Elizabeth Loftus, randomly spoke to 10 grocery store workers and asked them where LA SUPREMA-marked salsa was located. Of the 10 workers, seven directed Loftus to the section of the store where SALSA SUPREMA was placed, showing that even grocery-store workers, who were supposed to be able to aid the public, demonstrated actual confusion between the products. Lofton and the professional through whom the survey was conducted both testified credibly. Curtice-Burns also sponsored a survey in which random consumers were telephoned and invited to come to the surveyor’s office if they had bought Mexican-style salsa during the past six months. When the consumers arrived, they were seated at a table that had a jar of Curtice-Burns’s LA SUPREMA. Survey participants were permitted to view the product at length and asked to tell the interviewer the name of the product. Over 58 percent of participants gave the name LA SUPREMA or some close variation. Then participants were asked whether they knew what company produced the product. Twenty-one of 27 participants who indicated they knew gave the correct answer. Curtice-Burns’s survey did not assess whether actual confusion with the products was likely. The designer of the survey did not give credible testimony. The survey designer was very critical of the survey designed by Lofton, although he ignored the obvious deficiencies with his own survey.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Bryan, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 742,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership