## Facts

- Del Monte developed a pineapple variety known as MD-2 through significant investment and marketed it as “Del Monte Gold® Extra Sweet.”
- Del Monte treated MD-2 planting material, genetic information, and cultivation know-how as confidential and economically valuable.
- Del Monte alleged Dole obtained MD-2 plant material from a Costa Rican grower associated with Del Monte and then propagated and sold the variety as “Dole Premium Select.”
- Del Monte sued for (1) reverse palming off under the Lanham Act, (2) misappropriation of trade secrets under Florida law, (3) conversion of plant material, and (4) deceptive and unfair trade practices under Florida law.
- Dole moved to dismiss based on forum non conveniens, alternatively to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), and to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).

## Issues

1. Whether the case should be dismissed for forum non conveniens or transferred to another federal district under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
2. Whether Del Monte stated a Lanham Act § 43(a) reverse-palming-off claim based on alleged marketing of MD-2 pineapples as Dole’s product.
3. Whether the alleged subject matter—MD-2 genetic information, plant material, and cultivation methods—can constitute protectable trade secrets under Florida law and was adequately pleaded.
4. Whether Del Monte adequately stated claims for conversion and for deceptive and unfair trade practices under Florida law, and whether any portions were duplicative or otherwise legally deficient.

## Decision

- The court denied dismissal for forum non conveniens and denied transfer under § 1404(a), keeping the case in the Southern District of Florida.
- The court granted in part and denied in part the Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
- The court held Del Monte plausibly alleged a trade secret misappropriation claim; genetic and technical information about a plant variety can qualify as a trade secret.
- The court permitted the Lanham Act reverse-palming-off theory to proceed only to the extent it alleged false designation of origin (marketing Del Monte-origin fruit or its progeny as Dole’s), while limiting attempts to use § 43(a) as patent- or plant-variety-like protection.
- The court allowed conversion and FDUTPA theories to proceed insofar as they were tied to wrongful control of tangible plant material or deceptive marketing conduct, while trimming deficient or duplicative aspects.

## Legal Principles

- A plaintiff’s choice of forum is given deference; dismissal for forum non conveniens or transfer under § 1404(a) requires a strong showing that convenience and justice favor an alternative forum.
- Under Florida trade secret law, information about a product—such as genetic makeup, breeding work, plant stock, and cultivation methods—can be a trade secret if it is not generally known, has economic value from secrecy, and is subject to reasonable secrecy measures.
- The Lanham Act § 43(a) targets false designation of origin and consumer confusion; it does not provide a substitute for patent or plant-variety protection for the underlying innovation.
- Conversion requires interference with specific, identifiable property; claims are strongest when tied to tangible materials (e.g., physical plant stock) rather than purely intangible information.
- State unfair-practices claims may rest on deceptive marketing and trade-secret-related misconduct, but may be limited when they merely duplicate other causes of action or are insufficiently pleaded.

## Conclusion

The court kept the case in Florida and held that plant-related genetic and cultivation information can be protectable trade secrets, allowing Del Monte’s misappropriation claim and parts of its unfair-competition theories to proceed while narrowing claims that exceeded the consumer-confusion focus of the Lanham Act or otherwise lacked adequate pleading support.


Del Monte Fresh Produce Co. v. Dole Food Co., 136 F. Supp. 2d 1271 (S.D. Fla. 2001)