IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK NEWS: Kellogg alleges food truck infringes on EGGO trademarks, trade dress, (Jun 6, 2025)

By Jonathan Anderson

The food truck is emblazoned with the name “L’Eggo my Eggroll” and uses a similar color scheme and front stylization as packaging for EGGO frozen waffles, according to the complaint.

Multinational food conglomerate Kellogg North America Company LLC, which makes LEGGO brand frozen waffles and promotes them with the slogan L’EGGO MY EGGO, is suing the owner of an Ohio food truck that operates under the name “L’Eggo my Eggroll.” The complaint advances five counts: trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, unfair competition and false designation of origin, and trademark dilution (blurring and tarnishment). Kellogg alleges that it offered a reasonable opportunity to cease the infringement, but the food truck owner has “ignored Kellogg’s requests and responded with its own threats and demands.” The complaint seeks injunctive and monetary relief (Kellogg North America Co. LLC v. Leggo My Eggroll Ohio, LLC, No. 3:25-cv-01154-JZ (N.D. Ohio filed June 3, 2025)).

Background. On June 3, 2025, Michigan-based Kellogg filed a federal lawsuit in the Northern District of Ohio against Leggo My Eggroll Ohio, LLC. The complaint states that in April 2024, Kellogg became aware that defendant was operating a food truck called “L’Eggo my Eggroll” and registered a business under the same name. Kellogg alleges that defendant’s business name and food truck design infringe on Kellogg’s trademarks and trade dress, namely with respect to the EGGO brand frozen waffles.

Among the products that Kellogg manufactures is the EGGO brand of frozen waffles. Since 1972, the company has used the slogan L’EGGO MY EGGO to promote the waffles and owns numerous United States trademark registrations and applications for iterations of the L’EGGO MY EGGO and EGGO marks. Kellogg also has rights in packaging trade dress used in connection with EGGO products.

The complaint alleges that Kellogg sent letters to defendant and had multiple oral communications requesting that it cease the allegedly infringing conduct. Kellogg said that “in view of Defendant’s status as a small start-up business, Kellogg conveyed that it would allow Defendant a reasonable period of time to cease its conduct.”

However, instead of ceasing the infringing activities, Kellogg alleges that defendant has ignored Kellogg’s requests and “responded with its own threats and demands for Kellogg to purchase its entire business in exchange for a substantial monetary sum,” according to the complaint. Kellogg alleges that defendant “also communicated that Kellogg is responsible for medical bills related to the alleged reaction of one of Defendant’s principals to Kellogg’s letter.”

The complaint states that defendant “has been clear in all of its communications with Kellogg that Defendant will not stop its infringing conduct.” Kellogg said defendant’s “refusal to comply with Kellogg’s demands has left Kellogg with no other choice but to file the instant action.”

Claims. The complaint advances five counts under the Lanham Act: (1) trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114, (2) trade dress infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (3) unfair competition and false designation of origin under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); dilution by blurring under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(1); and dilution by tarnishment under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c).

The complaint alleges that defendant’s name and mark are nearly identical to the EGGO trademarks and are likely to confuse consumers into falsely believing that there is some association between defendant and Kellogg. The complaint future alleges that defendant’s use of the term “L’Eggo my Eggroll” is likely to dilute the market, and consumers are bound to associate the term with Kellogg and the EGGO trademarks.

The complaint also alleges that defendant’s food truck infringes on EGGO packaging trade dress by using a highly similar font stylization, along with a highly similar red, white, and yellow color scheme. Kellogg alleges that its packaging trade dress is highly inherently distinctive, has acquired secondary meaning, and is non-functional.

Relief sought. The complaint seeks, among other things, a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining defendant from using the EGGO trademarks or the term “L’Eggo my Eggroll”; using EGGO packaging trade dress; and unlawfully trading upon and misappropriating Kellogg’s goodwill and reputation. In addition, the complaint seeks a court order requiring defendant to destroy all materials containing the term “L’Eggo my Eggroll” or the EGGO packaging trade dress, and to remove from defendant’s vehicles the term “L’Eggo my Eggroll” and the EGGO packaging trade dress.

Kellogg also requests an order requiring defendant to deliver to Kellogg all products and other materials with any confusingly similar trademarks or trade dress of Kellogg. The complaint requests that defendant be ordered to pay to Kellogg all profits derived from violating 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114 and 1125(a) and the common law, and to pay Kellogg damages and enhanced damages. Kellogg also seeks an award to pay for corrective advertising.

The Case is No. 3:25-cv-01154-JZ.

Judge: Zouhary, J.

Attorneys: Mary Alexander Hyde (Honigman LLP) for Kellogg North America Co. LLC. No Attorneys Listed for Leggo my eggroll Ohio, LLC.

Companies: Kellogg North America Co. LLC; Leggo my eggroll Ohio, LLC

News: Trademark OhioNews