When Ford countersued Big League Chew and demanded a criminal declaration that Ford Gum owns the gum’s business dress, the legal battle between Big League Chew Properties and Ford Gum grew exponentially last year.
As Sportico comprehensive, Major League Chew sued Ford Gum in an Illinois federal district court next month for business dress infringement, which refers to copying another’s product and misleading consumers. In a brand program, Ford Gum, a licensee, claimed to have lied to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office by claiming to be the company responsible for the well-known gum. Big League Chew insists that it is” the brand’s owner.”
In a small endorsed by Bradley C. Graveline and other prosecutors from Sheppard, Mullin, Richter &amp, Hampton, Ford Gum answered the complaint last year. The business disputes allegations of wrongdoing and contends that Big League Chew’s “own images and steps” erode its situation.

According to Ford Gum, the Shredded Gum Trade Dress was legally enforceable by Big League Chew in March 2024. Ford Gum says it “reasonably focused” on that deal in making business and legal judgments.
Ford Gum asserts that at this point, it paid to abide by important Internet laws by issuing cease and desist letters and engaging in other infringement actions. Big League Chew, Ford Gum asserts, “never asked any questions” about the Internet police behavior and didn’t offer to help with the prices, either.
Ford Gum even accuses Big League Chew of renegadeing in its industry dress, despite the fact that it was aware that other businesses were utilizing the trade dress.
In February, Ford Gum learned that a competing candy business, Hilco Sweets, intended to build a foe model of crushed bubble gum under the Warheads trademark. Big League Chew chairman Rob Nelson was informed by a Ford Gum professional about this growth and suggested they look into possible legal strategies to address alleged violations. But, as Ford Gum tells story, Big League Chew “declined to participate in any attempts” and “preferred” preferably” to promote the contest”. Frustrated by Big League Chew’s reported silence, Ford Gum says it made an offer to Big League Chew that Ford Gum had “own … maintain, and pay” for the industry dress and Major League Chew, in turn, accepted.

The counterclaim is “needs to be brought in to enforce the terms of the agreement and promises” made by” Big League Chew, Ford Gum insists.” Ford Gum asks for a judicial declaration that it is the owner of the trade dress rights to the shape of the shredded gum and that it has not violated any agreement, not Big League Chew. Also required are injunctions to stop Big League Chew from claiming ownership in trade dress and stop it from replacing Ford Gum with another gum manufacturer.
Ford Gum contends that despite filing numerous trademark applications since the early 1980s, none of them allegedly contained a claim to exchange dress in shredded gum to support its case. Ford Gum also asserts that the license agreement between Ford and Big League Chew does not define or identify shredded gum trade dress.
Ford Gum also makes use of a phone call between Nelson and CEO Scott Lerner in September and their subsequent texts. Nelson allegedly phoned Lerner and” vented” about Ford Gum’s trade dress application. According to Ford Gum, Nelson “oversaw” the companies ‘ agreement that Ford Gum should own and enforce the trade dress and that Ford Gum should grant infringers the right to enforce trade dress rights.
A couple of days later, Nelson exchanged texts with Lerner. Nelson is depicted as saying that he “did not recall Ford Gum applying for the trade dress” and that this implied there was misunderstanding about what” trade dress” meant.
” The trade dress to me was the look and the design of the pouch, not the contents,” Nelson is quoted as writing”. I believe that my legal team should handle the trade dress application for shredded gum, and that I should, of course, be reimbursed by me.
Then Lerner referred to emails from the spring, in which Nelson allegedly agreed to Ford Gum “moving forward” with the shredded gum trade dress. ” After his recollection was refreshed by seeing the emails, Nelson allegedly texted Lerner that he was” good” with Ford Gum’s IP actions, though he said he” did not remember the idea. ” He also allegedly wrote that the” idea “was” a good one” and he was” willing to contribute to the expense that was required to acquire this protection.”

Nelson also claimed that he found it “unusual” that Ford Gum will be in charge of the trade dress protection rather than I. Given that it’s likely that you guys will eventually own all of the Big League Chew trademarks, Nelson’s assertion that “despite the texts quoted by Ford Gum, Nelson apparently reconciled his concern by noting” makes sense. ” Nelson is also quoted as seeming enthusiastic about the Big League Chew-Ford Gum relationship”. You guys,” Nelson allegedly texted”, have done a spectacular job reviving the brand … the product, the presentation, and the plant have all been upgraded dramatically. I’m over the moon about it all.
Big League Chew’s attorneys will have the opportunity to try to refute Ford Gum’s assertions in court documents. The case is before U. S. District Judge Franklin U. Valderrama.