Skip to main content

You can take the bread company out of Hawaii, but you can't take Hawaii out of the bread company.

You can take the bread company out of Hawaii, but you can't take Hawaii out of the bread company.

What do you do when your favourite company that makes your favourite type of bread makes it bread outside of your favourite state? You take them to court, or at least that is what one man has done. 

A man in New York has filed a class action against bread maker, King's Hawaiian over the sweet rolls alleging that the company misled him into believing that the rolls are actually made in Hawaii. Robert Galinsky is pursuing a class-action lawsuit against the company claiming unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud.

King's Hawaiian packaging

Galinsky claims that Hawaiian Rolls by itself "does not denote a roll made in Hawaii any more than a 'Moon Pie' can claim to have been baked on the moon." But the company using the original location of its factory, 'Hilo, Hawaii' in its packaging is misleading to customers. 

If Galinsky can convince the court that King's Hawaiian is misleading its customers, and quite frankly, it's a big 'if', he will face the issue that the packaging states that it is a California product.  

This isn't the first class-action lawsuit surrounding a company claiming to have Hawaiian roots, with another company, Hawaiian Host, facing a lawsuit over the fact that most of its chocolates' production occurs in California. 

But in the case of King's Hawaiian, what does the actual law state for mislabeling the state of origin? At this moment in time, the law does not extend to states inside of a country. Although some states, such as California and Hawaii have considered a 'Made in Hawaii/California' labelling protocol, these laws have never progressed from the drafting stage.

For food products, Section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930 is the most protection that requires that most food products must bear a country-of-origin label on their packaging. However, it does not extend to individual states of the USA. This section was recently enforced in the case of Federal Trade Commission v Bollman Hat Company, where a company was labelling their hats with labels such as 'Choose American' and 'Made in the USA since 1868' even though up to 70% of their products were imported from other countries. But the distinction from the King's Hawaiian matter is that King's Hawaiian never said they were made in Hawaii.

In Australia, the Australia Consumer Law dictates a clear distinction between stating something is a product of a place and that a product is made in a specific location. In the case of 'product of' each significant ingredient and virtually all of the product's production must occur in one country whereas 'made in' merely needs to have the last transformation of the product to happen in that country. 


Popular posts from this blog

OFF-BRAND - How a high-fashion brand and a local ice cream shop have come to blows over intellectual property

OFF-BRAND  How a high-fashion brand and an ice cream shop have come to blows over intellectual property In the various industries that are out there, not too many are as different as fashion and ice cream. One is involved in providing happiness, comfort and everything nice in this world and that other provides a sharp reminder that maybe that extra scoop of ice cream was too much. But suffice to say, a rift between the two industries is not something that you would expect to find.  But as hype culture and the obsessive fandom on the internet have grown, the industries have been growing closer and closer together. But sadly, not in the way you think, we are still a few years off wearable ice cream. Instead, there is now a good chance that your local ice creamery sells merchandise. Less impressive, for sure. But this has become a staple for restaurants with even just a modicum of goodwill attached to their name and why not? If customers are willing to pay an extra $50 so that people will

Cosplaying Fast and Loose: Intellectual Property Theft or Innovation

In light of the ongoing pandemic effects, Japan has decided to take on the real issues and has announced the reform of how copyright is looked at concerning cosplaying. Cosplaying is a way of dressing up in costume as some of the characters from your favorite tv show/anime and while dressing up in costume isn't likely to cause you to receive a copyright notice, being paid to do so most likely will. This kind of thing can definitely spoil a children's birthday party when one of the six-year-olds turns out to be an undercover police officer working in the intellectual property squad, but nevertheless, copyright protections are genuine and are what gives a company incentive to come up with a new character in the first place.  So, the Japanese government have come out and said that they would undertake a review of the situation and release a brochure of approved ways to Cosplay without infringing copyright moving forward. But as history is always doomed to repeat itself, let's

Misappropriation of likeness, it's in the game

Misappropriation of likeness, it's in the game With the recent announcement that EA will be venturing back into the world of college sports for one of their upcoming games. It is essential to look at the reasons for its (over a decade-long) hiatus from making college sports games. Several high-profile cases took down a very profitable area of sports gaming almost ten years ago, over a simple but crucial element to the games, the players.  Privacy and personality laws in the United States is an emerging area of law founded on the basis that is based in tort law. It deals with the ideas that a person has rights: 1. To be left alone; 2. To not have public disclosure of private facts; 3. To not be depicted in a false light; and 4. To not have your name and likeness misappropriated.  On these critical tenets, personality laws have become increasingly more prevalent as, due to advances in technologies, it is becoming easier for one's likeness to be copied and distributed.  Th