A predecessor to PRINGLES called CHIPOS was sued by the Potato Chip Institute for calling itself potato chips, a false advertising suit under 43 of the Lanham Act.  The court of appeals decided CHIPOS could use the term potato chip as long as it made it clear that it was made from dehydrated potatoes.  I think the potato chip institute might have been better off trying to establish some sort certification mark for American Potato Chips (potato chips by itself is probably generic and could not be made into any kinds of trademark).  This was consistent with FDA guidelines that had been issued after a survey showed that 98% of all consumers were not deceived by PRINGLES brand potato chips into thinking they were made from slices of raw potato 
 
Potato Chip Institute v. General Mills, Inc. (1972), 461 F. 2d 1088 (8th Cir.).

 

I think Pringles has never described itself as potato chips. 
 
I like to use this example in teaching as just one of several possible tactics a business may use to try to control the use of particular names beyond trademarking its particular brand name.   

________________________________

From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk on behalf of Marsha Hass
Sent: Mon 6/1/2009 10:45 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: NYTimes.com: The Lord Justice Hath Ruled: Pringles Are Potato Chips


 
 

 This page was sent to you by:  [log in to unmask] 

OPINION   | June 01, 2009 
Editorial Observer:  The Lord Justice Hath Ruled: Pringles Are Potato Chips <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/opinion/01mon4.html?emc=eta1> 
By ADAM COHEN 
The decision is bad news for Procter & Gamble U.K., which now owes $160 million in taxes. It is good news for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs - and for fans of no-nonsense legal opinions.