Jump to content
  • Join Our Community!

    Do you have questions about celiac disease or the gluten-free diet?

  • Jefferson Adams
    Jefferson Adams

    Bob’s Red Mill Sues Gluten Intolerance Group Over Dueling Gluten-Free Symbols

      A Gluten-Free label spat turns legal, as Bob sues Gluten Intolerance Group of North America before they can sue Bob’s for potential copyright infringement.

    Caption: Here you can see the use of "GF" in both marks.

    Celiac.com 06/08/2018 - A spat over gluten-free symbols turned legal recently, when Bob’s Red Mill filed a lawsuit against the Gluten Intolerance Group of North America in U.S. district court in Portland. Bob’s Red Mill is looking to continue using their current gluten-free logo without seeking permission from, or paying money to, the Gluten Intolerance Group (G.I.G.), which verifies and certifies gluten-free products through its Gluten-Free Certification Organization program. To date, the program has certified more than 30,000 products in 29 different countries.

    For its gluten-free labeling, Bob’s Red Mill currently uses a gluten-free circle symbol with “gluten-free” in larger letters in the middle. Above and below the gluten-free, in smaller font are the words “GLUTEN” and “FREE,” respectively. For their certification label, The Gluten Intolerance Group uses a similar “gluten-free” in a circle, with the words “Certified” and “Gluten-Free” in smaller letters above and below the circle, respectively.

    Bob’s Red Mill said in court documents that on May 17 it received a cease and desist e-mail from the G.I.G. The e-mail stated that G.I.G. has used their mark consistently in commerce since 2005, and demanded that Bob’s cease using their logo, saying it was similar to the G.I.G.’s logo and could confuse consumers into thinking the Group had certified the Bob’s Red Mill products, which it had not. The Food and Drug Administration’s says that a product labeled gluten-free must have less than 20 parts per million, and Bob’s Red Mill says they adhere to that standard.

    In court document, Bob’s said that “complying with G.I.G.’s demand would require a significant redesign and marketing process,” and that the “potential damages exceed $75,000.” The suit by Bob’s Red Mill claims that G.I.G. abandoned its application to register its gluten-free mark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on Feb. 13 of this year, and asks the court to declare that G.I.G.s gluten-free mark is unenforceable and merely descriptive.

    Basically, Bob’s seems to be launching a preemptive lawsuit to put G.I.G. on its heels before G.I.G has the chance to sue Bob’s. Stay tuned to see if this suit actually makes it to a trial, or if cooler heads prevail and the two sides work something out.

    The Gluten Intolerance Group was founded in 1974, and offers consumer support, advocacy and education to the gluten-free community. Bob’s Red Mill was founded in 1978, is a global provider of gluten-free milled grain products, and certified-organic milled grain products.

    Disclosure: Bob's Red Mill and G.I.G. have been sponsors of Celiac.com.


    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    This is sad news and the last thing those needing to avoid gluten in their diets need.  Very sad that these two trusted leaders in the gluten free world can’t work things out without taking it to court.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I don't understand the conflict and am wondering if BRM is on the attack to avoid people finding out their products are NOTcertified. BR does a good job testing their products themselves, but when it comes to oats- especially, they use a mechanical sorter like so many other companies and declare their products are below 20 ppm on a consistent basis. That maybe good enough for those who are NCGS, but not enough for sensitive celiacs. Personally I have a dozen of their products in my pantry and freezer and have no problem. That said, when GIG puts their seal of approval products, even sensitive celiacs can be rest assured the inspection and testing procedures are top-notch. That seal has been in use and trusted long before BRM newer seal so, seriously, who is infringing on whom in this silly "war". Users know and trust that GIG symbol and those who purchase BRM products usually know exactly what they are getting.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Guest gluten-free Mom

    Posted

    Bob's Red Mill does not use the word certified, so there is a difference.  What is important is that people recognize what is gluten free. It is a shame that there has to be a lawsuit. I understand Bob's Red Mill protecting themselves; but, so tired of hearing about people/companies having to go to court to settle issues. Is the cost of this passed onto the consumers?

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Wow.  gluten-free with a circle around it.  So confusing!  (eyeroll)  It is indeed ridiculous.  Sad that BRM has to sue to be able to use gluten-free in a circle!

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I'm so tired of "trademark protection" being used by one entity to harass other entities when the symbol or name is distinguishable.  Did the GIG trademark the initials "G F"?  Or a circle?  

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I find this ironic, I won't touch Bob's Red Mill products because they make me really sick. It's not gluten free, just lacking enough gluten to fall below the parts per million quota to label their products gluten free. This of course doesn't take into account when they screw up and ship with gluten contamination. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    As a sensitive Celiac, I use and appreciate Bob's Red Mill products, but I've never even noticed the red-circled gluten-free. I always look for the full "gluten-free" banner across the top of the label since our market stocks all the BRM products together and they are difficult to distinguish.I always recognize and trust the "certified gluten-free" label. It is a shame there is infighting when proponents of this market need to stick together.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I am also concerned that BRM is trying to pass itself off as certified.  With all we have read about product issues in other areas, or when original owners retire or sell out, there goes the quality unless there is 3rd party accountability.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    The color is different, the font is different, the word "certified" is used by GIG but not by BRM. This smacks of a legal shakedown by GIG, sort of like McDonalds several years ago suing a hotel chain that called itself McSleep (McDonalds seemed to claim that it owned the prefix Mc). "Gluten free" is a descriptive term and cannot be copyrighted, nor can "gluten-free," and any trademark would extend only to something that is confusingly similar in format. But there are only so many ways one can present a gluten free claim, and BRM isn't claiming certification, which is a substantial difference. I don't think GIG has a legal leg to stand on, but the lawyers can spend a lot of money arguing, which doesn't help anyone in the gluten-free community; we'll end up paying with even higher food costs.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    It would be nice to have everyone on the same page or should I say the same label.  To go into a store and shop can be very time consuming, to have a universal logo by ALL companies would be advantageous to those who must be gluten free.  I purchase BRM products and find the company accommodating to those with celiac.  I hope they can come to an amiable solution for consumer and producer.  One must remember the purpose of Gluten Free Labeling, a guarantee that the food we purchase is safe, period.  Stop fighting and work together!!!

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • About Me

    Jefferson Adams earned his B.A. and M.F.A. at Arizona State University, and has authored more than 2,000 articles on celiac disease. His coursework includes studies in biology, anatomy, medicine, science, and advanced research, and scientific methods. He previously served as Health News Examiner for Examiner.com, and devised health and medical content for Sharecare.com. Jefferson has spoken about celiac disease to the media, including an appearance on the KQED radio show Forum, and is the editor of the book "Cereal Killers" by Scott Adams and Ron Hoggan, Ed.D.

  • Related Articles

    Jefferson Adams
    Celiac.com 06/08/2007 - On May 30th, federal judge Elaine E. Bucklo dismissed key parts of a lawsuit against McDonalds regarding the gluten-free status of their famous French fries.
    The case, In Re McDonalds French Fries Litigation (MDL-1784), was brought in February 2006, by two Florida plaintiffs on behalf of their autistic daughter who allegedly suffered ill effects from eating McDonalds French fries. At the time, the company claimed that the French fries were gluten-free.
    The lawsuit claimed in part that McDonalds "failure to disclose the fact that their French fries contained gluten constitutes deceptive, unfair, unconscionable, misleading and fraudulent trade practices," and that "McDonalds unfairly and unjustly profited from their conduct. The judge dismissed claims of fraud, breach of implied warranty, and a request for injunctive relief, but left intact two counts, breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment.
    In its arguments for dismissal, McDonalds claimed that most of the plaintiffs legal causes of action were barred as a matter of law. Basically, McDonalds asserted that the plaintiffs pled themselves out of court by arguing facts that undermined their own claim.
    The plaintiffs fraud allegations were rejected because they failed to meet the specificity required under the federal rules. McDonalds argued that the plaintiffs claim of fraud and misrepresentation failed to state how, when, or where the alleged misrepresentations took place. Federal Rule 9( of Civil Procedure requires that all claims of fraud be stated with particularity; otherwise, they face dismissal.
    Judge Bucklo rejected the plaintiffs claim for injunctive relief because she found there was no threat of future wrongful conduct. The company revised its web site in 2006 to show that its fries and hash browns contain gluten. Also, the publicity brought by the suit arguably eliminated any need for injunctive relief.
    The plaintiffs have 28 days to amend their complaint or the lawsuit will go forward based on the two remaining counts.
    health writer who lives in San Francisco and is a frequent author of articles for Celiac.com.

    Jefferson Adams
    Celiac.com 02/26/2016 - Consumer complaints to the FDA fueled a class action lawsuit claiming that cereal maker General Mills mislabeled gluten contaminated Cheerios as "gluten-free."
    The recent suit was brought by a Kentucky woman, who alleges that she purchased two boxes of Honey Nut Cheerios labeled as gluten-free, but which actually contained gluten levels more than two times higher than allowed under FDA standards.
    The consumer complaints led to FDA testing on gluten-free Cheerios. The FDA tested 36 samples of gluten-free Cheerios taken from different manufacturing facilities and lots. The tests found that some "Gluten Free" Cheerios samples contained as much as 43 ppm gluten. Current FDA rules forbid the use of the statement "gluten-free" on any food product with gluten levels above 20 parts per million.
    General Mills issued a recall on Oct. 5., and the suit was filed in late 2015 in a California federal court, and charges violations of California and Kentucky consumer protection laws.
    The suit alleges that supposedly gluten-free oats were cross contaminated with ordinary wheat at one of General Mills' processing facilities.
    Stay tuned for more news on this and other developments on gluten-free labeling and celiac disability claims.
    Read more at Legalnewsline.com.

    Jefferson Adams
    Celiac.com 5/23/2016 - Plenty of people have followed the news of the woman who sued Chinese food chain P.F. Chang's, claiming that they discriminated against her by charging more for gluten-free dishes than for other non-gluten-free options.
    Celiac.com covered P.F. Chang's efforts to have the suit dismissed, and also P.F. Chang's failure to prevent the woman from modifying the lawsuit, thus keeping it viable, if only for a time.
    U.S. District Judge Ronald Whyte, of the Northern District of California, had dismissed the original complaint in August, but reinstated the suit once plaintiff Anna Marie Phillips amended her complaint. On Nov. 23, 2015, Whyte ruled that Phillips had sufficiently pleaded her claims in that amended complaint.
    Many in the restaurant industry were watching the suit carefully since it was first filed in December 2014, as the claim of discrimination, based on higher charges for gluten-free items at P.F. Chang's, could have serious repercussions for the industry as a whole.
    Phillips has now asked the judge to dismiss her lawsuit.
    At least for now, the question to whether surcharges or higher charges for gluten-free food options constitute some form of discrimination against those with celiac disease or gluten-intolerance, remains un-litigated.
    The position of the Department of Justice is that celiac disease is not a disability in every case, and that there are plenty of cases in which it is not a disability.
    Read more at Legal News Line.

    Jefferson Adams
    Celiac.com 10/11/2017 - A Merrill Lynch broker in Denver has sued the firm in federal court, claiming that its systemic "sabotage" of his relationship with clients during and following two medical leaves have cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars.
    In a case filed this summer in federal court in Colorado, Kirk Kringel, a broker with Merrill since 2010, alleges that the company violated his rights under the Family Medical Leave Act by retaliating against him for taking the two medical leaves, including one that was related to celiac disease.
    A seasoned broker, Mr. Kringel worked previously with Morgan Stanley and Dean Witter for nearly 15 years before joining Merrill Lynch. According to the complaint, colleagues and managers at Merrill "systematically interfered with and sabotaged Kringel's relationships with his clients by failing to service some of his clients, permanently re-assigning some of his clients to other financial advisors, and providing misinformation to his clients that undermined his relationships."
    Kringel claims that the sabotage cost him annual income in excess of $250,000, and that the actions were taken deliberately as retaliation for Kringel's three-month leave in 2015 and an unpaid medical leave that he began in February 2017. Kringel alleges in the suit that the losses to his accounts were engineered by a former business partner and colleague who moved with him to Merrill, and is claiming that the alleged violation of federal FMLA law justifies a courtroom trial.
    If successful, he will avoid arbitration, which would be the standard course for such complaints.
    Merrill Lynch spokesman Bill Halldin disputed the allegations on behalf of the company, but offered no comment on whether it will seek to have the complaint moved to arbitration.
    Neither Kringel, nor his lawyers at the firm of Moye, White offered further comment.
    Stay tuned for more on Mr. Kringel's efforts, and on legal issues regarding celiac disease and employment, disability, and the like.
    Read more at Advisorhub.com

×
×
  • Create New...