I’m Ollie.  Plaintiff, Unilever, owns an extensive portfolio of over 25 trademarks ending in -SICLE such as POPSICLE, FUDGSICLE and CREAMSICLE, primarily for quiescently frozen treats but for non-food goods as well.  I note in passing that the inventor, Epperson, had originally called his first creation the EPSICLE, which he re-named the POPSICLE.  Defendants promote BONESICLES, a ‘freezer pop dog treat.’  The website claims that ‘taste tests show 100% of dogs loved the flavor.’  A bold claim indeed.  Unilever moves under infringement and dilution theories.

Unilever asserts a family of marks, that is to say, the  -SICLE suffix has achieved secondary meaning, a reasonable assertion considering the popularity of POPSICLES, FUDGSICLES and CREAMSICLES among humans.

But query: whither Chewy Vuitton?

Complaint Unilever Koolpet(function() { var scribd = document.createElement(“script”); scribd.type = “text/javascript”; scribd.async = true; scribd.src = “http://www.scribd.com/javascripts/embed_code/inject.js”; var s = document.getElementsByTagName(“script”)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(scribd, s); })();