## Facts

- American Italian Pasta Company owned and marketed the Mueller’s dried pasta brand after acquiring it in 2000.
- American placed the slogan “America’s Favorite Pasta” on Mueller’s packaging, along with other promotional statements about heritage and product quality (e.g., “Quality Since 1867,” “Made from 100% Semolina”).
- Packaging copy stated that pasta lovers had enjoyed Mueller’s for 130 years, described ingredients and cooking quality, and invited consumers to “taste why Mueller’s is America’s favorite pasta.”
- Competitor New World Pasta Company sent a cease-and-desist letter demanding American stop using the slogan.
- American sued for declaratory judgment that the slogan was not false or misleading advertising under Lanham Act § 43(a)(1)(B).
- New World counterclaimed under the Lanham Act and state unfair-competition laws, relying in part on survey evidence that some consumers took the slogan to mean Mueller’s was a national brand or the nation’s top-selling pasta.
- The district court granted summary judgment to American on the federal claims and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

## Issues

1. Whether “America’s Favorite Pasta” on product packaging constitutes a false or misleading representation of fact in commercial advertising under Lanham Act § 43(a)(1)(B).
2. Whether the slogan is nonactionable commercial puffery or an actionable, specific, verifiable factual claim (e.g., national sales leadership).

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for American.
- The court held “America’s Favorite Pasta” is generalized, subjective promotional language and therefore nonactionable puffery.
- Consumer survey evidence did not convert the slogan into a provable factual assertion because classification of puffery is a legal question based on the statement’s objective character and context.
- With no viable federal claim, the district court acted within its discretion in declining supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

## Legal Principles

- Lanham Act § 43(a)(1)(B) requires a false or misleading representation of fact in commercial advertising or promotion.
- Actionable advertising claims are specific, measurable, and capable of being proved true or false; vague boasting and subjective superiority claims are puffery and not actionable.
- Whether a statement is puffery is a question of law assessed in context and from the standpoint of a reasonable consumer.
- Survey evidence of consumer interpretation may be relevant to deception, but it cannot transform inherently vague promotional language into an objectively verifiable factual claim.
- Federal courts may decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissal of all federal claims.

## Conclusion

The court held that “America’s Favorite Pasta,” viewed in context on Mueller’s packaging, was nonactionable puffery rather than a verifiable assertion of national market leadership, defeating Lanham Act liability and supporting summary judgment for American while permitting dismissal of related state-law claims without reaching their merits.


Am. Italian Pasta Co. v. New World Pasta Co., 371 F.3d 387 (8th Cir. 2004)