Business is a tough world and corporate lawyers have a busy time protecting their companies in court.
The courts are full of smart-suited attorneys issuing and defending accusations over business decisions. Some infamous feuds between companies that have lasted for decades.
However, not all legal battles are fought over significant issues. Some lawsuits are downright silly. They leave the public scratching their heads in disbelief as hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent over apparently petty matters.
Here are 10 of the silliest things companies have sued each other for.
The Shape of a KitKat
Nestlé and Cadbury have a long history of legal disputes.
One of the most bizarre involved the shape of the KitKat bar. Nestlé attempted to trademark the four-finger shape of its KitKat bars.
This led to a lengthy legal battle with Cadbury. Cadbury’s lawyers argued the shape was not distinctive enough to warrant a trademark.
The European Union even got involved in the row.
Ultimately, Nestlé lost the case, proving that even the shape of a chocolate bar can lead to a courtroom showdown.
Looking for a job? Visit whatjobs.com today
Taco Bell vs. Taco John’s: “Taco Tuesday”
In 1989, Taco John’s, a regional fast-food chain, trademarked the phrase “Taco Tuesday.” Years later, Taco Bell challenged this trademark.
The fast food giant argued the term was too generic to be owned by any one company. The legal tussle highlighted the absurdity of claiming exclusive rights to a common phrase.
In 2023, Taco Bell successfully petitioned to cancel the trademark, freeing up “Taco Tuesday” for everyone to use.
Subway’s Footlong Controversy
Subway found itself in hot water when a customer discovered its “Footlong” sandwich was actually only 11 inches long. This led to a class-action lawsuit against Subway for false advertising.
The case was settled, with Subway agreeing to ensure all Footlong sandwiches would indeed measure up to 12 inches in the future.
Hiring? Post jobs for free with WhatJobs
Apple’s Rounded Corners
Apple is known for its sleek product designs, but in 2012, the company took its design obsession to new heights by suing Samsung over the rounded corners of its smartphones. Apple claimed the rounded corners were a key design element of its iPhone and that Samsung had copied it.
The case was part of a broader patent war between the two tech giants, which eventually resulted in a mixed verdict and a series of appeals.
Red Bull vs. Bullards
In 2019, Red Bull, the energy drink company, filed a lawsuit against Bullards, a small gin distillery in the UK. This was over the use of the word “bull” in its name.
Red Bull argued consumers might confuse the two brands.
Companies often get heavy over the use of particular words, and often make the argument customers might get confused. However, in a lot of cases, judges highlight that people on the whole aren’t quite stupid enough to mix up two completely different products.
Red Bull, of course, is a caffeinated energy drink and gin is a popular alcoholic tipple, often mixed with tonic water.
The legal action was widely criticized as overreaching, given the vast difference between the products and their market presence. The dispute was eventually resolved out of court.
The “Happy Birthday” Song
For many years, Warner/Chappell Music claimed ownership of the “Happy Birthday” song and charged licensing fees for its use in movies, TV shows, and public performances.
In 2013, a lawsuit challenged the copyright, arguing the song should be in the public domain. The court agreed, ruling in 2016 the copyright claim was invalid, freeing up the beloved tune for everyone to sing without fear of legal repercussions.
Monster Energy vs “vermonster”
Monster Energy has a history of aggressive trademark enforcement, often targeting small businesses and products that use the word “monster” or a similar claw mark logo.
One of the most ridiculous cases involved a Vermont brewery, which Monster sued over the use of the word “vermonster” for one of its beers. The lawsuit was eventually settled, but it highlighted the lengths to which companies will go to protect their trademarks.
Louis Vuitton vs Chewy Vuiton
Louis Vuitton, the luxury fashion brand, sued a small pet toy company over its “Chewy Vuiton” line of dog toys, which parody the famous LV logo. The fashion giant claimed trademark infringement, while the pet toy company argued that the toys were a clear parody and not likely to confuse consumers.
The court sided with the pet toy company, ruling that the parody was protected under free speech.
Budweiser’s Czech Dispute
Budweiser, the American beer giant, has been involved in a long-running legal battle with Budweiser Budvar, a Czech brewery, over the rights to the Budweiser name. The dispute dates back to 1907, with both companies claiming the name for their respective markets.
The legal tussle has resulted in various rulings in different countries, with neither side achieving a definitive global victory.
Need Career Advice? Get employment skills advice at all levels of your career
Google vs Froogles
In 2004, Google sued a small company called Froogles over its name, arguing that it was too similar to Google’s product search service, Froogle. Despite the clear difference in the names and the fact that Froogles was a small business directory, Google pursued the lawsuit aggressively.
The case was eventually settled, with Froogles agreeing to change its name. This highlights the issue of the power of the big boys who can continue to throw money at legal challenges, compared to smaller companies.
