Owner of ‘Derby Pie’ Trademark Sues Newspaper For Using The Term, Publishing Recipe Reports TechDirt
Long-time Techdirt readers may recall that the “Derby Pie”, a notable dessert sold in Kentucky chiefly around the time of The Kentucky Derby, has been the previous subject of trademark issues. Way back in 2013, the EFF posted a special recipe for its “mean-spirited censorship pie” after Kern’s Kitchen, headed by Alan Rupp, went on a threat blitz against a bunch of blogs for posting their own recipes for “derby pie”. Rupp has a trademark on the term, see, and seems to think that trademark means that he is in universal control of anyone using it for their own recipes, regardless of whether those recipe posts cause any customer confusion, are used in actual commerce, or generally violate the other aspects of trademark protection statutes. He’s wrong about that, of course, but his threats are often met with shivering compliance.
But Rupp took this to a whole new level when he filed a trademark suit in 2018 against the Louisville Courier-Journal, a newspaper, for both posting its own Derby Pie recipe and for mentioning that other bakeries had derby pie products. The court promptly dismissed the lawsuit.
U.S. District Judge Rebecca Jennings, an appointee of President Donald Trump, dismissed Rupp’s complaint in March and ruled the newspaper had used the term in a “non-trademark” fashion.
Jennings called Rupp’s complaint “skeletal,” finding he failed to establish a plausible claim that a consumer would think the newspaper asserted ownership of the mark or itself was a manufacturer of Derby Pie.
In other words, there was no chance for customer confusion because, well, The LCJ is a damned newspaper. As to mentioning that other bakeries had products that existed, the LCJ reporting on that factual occurrence had nothing to do with trademark law and is protected First Amendment speech.
But rather than admitting how absurd this all was and slinking away, Rupp instead appealed the ruling. At this point, Rupp’s legal team is asserting that dismissal at the pleading stage was incorrect, as courts are supposed to give deference to plaintiffs at that stage. Which is true, except in cases when the case has little to no chance of succeeding, which is certainly the case here. The LCJ itself responded, pointing out that First Amendment is a thing.
