Splenda Settles Trademark Dispute with IHOP and Applebee’s over Yellow Packaging
Heartland Food Products Group (“Heartland”), the maker of Splenda sweetener, has settled a lawsuit with Dine Brands Global (formerly DineEquity Inc.) (“DBG”), the franchisor of International House of Pancakes (“IHOP”) and Applebee’s.
Heartland sued DBG for trademark infringement on the basis that the two DBG restaurants provided customers with an artificial sweetener made in China when they had asked for Splenda. This Chinese-made sweetener was distributed in yellow packets similar to the packaging used by Splenda. Heartland owns several design trademarks that protect the artificial sweetener’s yellow packaging colour.
Heartland filed its complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, and alleged trademark infringement, false designation of origin, unfair competition and trademark dilution. Heartland pointed to interviews it conducted with DBG’s customers, and the evidence indicated that customers were unclear as to whether they were consuming Splenda or the off-brand sweetener.
DBG tried to have the lawsuit thrown out earlier this year, arguing that the yellow-packaging colour served a functional purpose, i.e., distinguishing the sweeteners as sucralose, rather than sugar or another low-calorie sweetener. However, District Court judge Sarah Evans Barker ruled that Heartland had a valid case. Following a precedent set in 1995 in Qualitex Co. v. Jacobsen Prod. Co., Inc., 514 U.S. 159, 162, Justice Barker held that “color alone can serve as a protectable trademark feature if it develops secondary meaning and does not serve a functional purpose that would place competitors at a non-reputational disadvantage.” The Court in this case held that the allegations supported the inference that Splenda’s yellow packaging served only to signify the contents were Splenda.
Heartland and DBG came to a settlement after this ruling, the terms of which are unknown. Notably, Heartland had filed a similar lawsuit against Dunkin’ Donuts in 2016, which was also settled under unknown terms.
Author: Abid Khalid
Photo Credit: https://unsplash.com/@agustinfernandez
Expertise
Insights
-
Intellectual Property Litigation
Trademarks Opposition Board Moves to Digital-Only Submission of Confidential Information
As of June 1, 2026, the Trademarks Opposition Board (TMOB) requires all confidential evidence and documentation in proceedings under sections 11.13, 38, or 45 of the Trademarks Act (the “Act”) to be… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Kansas City Chiefs Stars Sued for Trademark Infringement Over Steakhouse
The sneaker company, 1587 Sneakers, is reportedly suing Kansas City Chiefs players, Patrick Mahomes and Travis Kelce, along with their restaurant partners, for trademark infringement.1587 Sneakers… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
A Pecking Order Problem: Pudgy Penguins Faces Penguin Trademark Lawsuit
As reported by Bloomberg Law News, PEI Licensing (“PEI”), the owner of the Penguin apparel brand, has sued Pudgy Penguins NFT (“Pudgy Penguins”) for trademark infringement.Pudgy Penguins started as a… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Old Brand, New Problems? Nike’s Attempt to Revive “Total 90” Soccer Cleats
Nike is reportedly attempting to revive its classic “Total 90” soccer cleat line, but has encountered an unexpected setback. Total90, LLC has reportedly asserted that Nike is infringing its… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
A Swing and a Miss: The “All Rise” Trademark Attempt
As reported by Bloomberg, attempts to register marks covering the phrases “All Rise” and “Here Comes the Judge” were rejected by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Hershey’s Kisses Go to Court – Federal Court of Appeal Decision in PIM Brands Inc. v. Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery LLC
The Federal Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Promotion in Motion, Inc. (PIM Brands, Inc.) v. Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery LLC offers fresh guidance on how courts evaluate survey evidence…