A cookie war is brewing as Pepperidge Farm Sues Trader Joe’s. It always makes me nervous from an ethical point of view when two major companies “clash” in regard to fraud or misrepresentation, and the company being accused refuses to respond. Though the subject of the complaint we are about to discuss may seem almost irrelevant or even silly, it is pretty serious stuff.
On December 4, 2015, Reuters ran a story entitled: “Pepperidge Farm sues Trader Joe’s over Milano cookie” and according to the article:
“Pepperidge Farm has sued Trader Joe’s, accusing the grocery chain of trademark infringement for selling a cookie that looks too much like its popular Milano cookie.
In a complaint filed on Wednesday in the New Haven, Connecticut federal court, Pepperidge Farm said Trader Joe’s is damaging its goodwill and confusing shoppers through its sale of Trader Joe’s Crispy Cookies.”
I must admit that in first seeing the packaged cookies in my local Trader Joe’s, I thought they were Milano’s. The Milano-like cookies they are selling look nearly identical to the real thing, and the packaging, right down to the font-style unmistakably says “Pepperidge Farm.” It is a copy and a mimic. This is much more than about a cookie.
More than about trust
“The trust Pepperidge Farm has built with consumers is of utmost importance to us,” a spokeswoman said.
Each year companies such as Pepperidge Farm (and its parent company Campbell’s) spend tens of millions of dollars on publicizing and advertising their brands. There is a reason for that, and in fact, $1.5 billion in reasons. That’s the sales of Pepperidge Farms cookie and cracker brands. In a Huffington Post cookie poll of the top 10 brands in America, the Milano cookie came in at #7 and that’s a lot of cookies.
It would appear as though Trader Joe’s is merrily riding along on Milano’s coattails, by simply copying the packaging and the general shape and size (and flavor) of the cookies. For those who don’t think of this as much of a big deal, think of a Lady Gaga lookalike showing up at unsanctioned, but for-profit concerts or fake, but “working” iPhones sold on street corners, or much more seriously, a medication that looks identical to the real thing, is packaged like the real thing, but is marginal in terms of its efficacy. While the three examples above are increasingly more serious, what they have in common is that they are copycats taking advantage of the reputation, advertising, packaging and acceptance of the original product. Infringement occurs anywhere and can encompass nearly anything.
The giveaway in all of this discussion is the packaging. It was edgy enough that Trader Joe’s chose to copy the cookie and indeed, there are many private label cookie baking companies that have the ability to copy it, but copying the spirit of the packaging font and the graphics is much more than edgy. It is unethical.
Where this leads us
Whether a cookie or a medication or a doggie shampoo, those in sales and marketing for any organization are given a set of ethical choices in their daily work lives. While coincidences or look-alike packaging “accidents” can happen, for the most part staff members in larger organizations are pretty savvy and have intent and purpose. The decision to launch any product is never taken lightly; there’s a lot of money behind that type of effort.
There is a huge leap from wanting to make a Milano-like cookie to making a Milano knock-off. That is why Pepperidge Farm has reacted in the way it has reacted. It is hard to fault them (and for the record, I am a huge Trader Joe’s fan).
Ethics training might have prevented this foul-up from occurring in the first place. Ethically, the big shots at Trader Joe’s should have realized that Pepperidge Farm would have protected its Milano’s like a mama bear its cubs.
I believe the Trader Joe’s marketers might have realized where the unethical road would lead them had they had an ethical grounding. This unethical move could cost them a lot of cookies.
YOUR COMMENTS ARE WELCOME!
