## Facts

- John T. Downey, an airline pilot, submitted to General Foods a marketing idea to increase sales of Jell-O by targeting children with a “wiggly” themed name, including variations such as “WIG-L-E” and related spellings.
- General Foods required Downey to complete an Idea Submittal Form stating, in substance, that the company could use submitted ideas at its discretion and that the submission created no confidentiality obligation.
- General Foods acknowledged receipt of the submission and communicated that it was not interested.
- About four months later, General Foods introduced a children’s gelatin product/marketing concept called “Mr. Wiggle.”
- General Foods asserted independent development and presented evidence that:
  - “Wiggle” themes had appeared in its Jell-O advertising years before Downey’s submission.
  - Advertising personnel developed “Mr. Wiggle” in response to competitive conditions and prior internal/agency thinking about marketing gelatin desserts to children.
  - Individuals handling idea submissions had no contact with those developing the “Mr. Wiggle” campaign, and discovery produced no evidence that creators had access to Downey’s submission.

## Issues

1. Whether Downey’s submitted “wiggly” child-marketing concept for Jell-O was sufficiently novel and original to constitute a protectable property interest under New York law.
2. Whether, given the evidence of prior use and independent development, General Foods was entitled to summary judgment dismissing misappropriation-based claims.

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals held that Downey’s idea lacked the required novelty and originality.
- The court concluded there was no triable issue of fact linking Downey’s submission to the development of “Mr. Wiggle.”
- The court reversed the order denying General Foods’ motion and granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

## Legal Principles

- An idea is not protectable as property in an idea-submission/misappropriation claim unless it is both novel and original.
- Ideas that merely describe or capitalize on an existing product’s obvious characteristics are not novel and generally are not protectable.
- Where the defendant previously used, independently developed, or already contemplated substantially the same idea, the plaintiff cannot satisfy novelty as to that defendant.
- Summary judgment is appropriate when the record shows no material factual dispute on novelty/originality and no evidence of access or causal connection between the submission and the defendant’s challenged use.
- A submission agreement disclaiming confidentiality and payment obligations undermines claims premised on a confidential relationship or an implied obligation to compensate.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that marketing Jell-O to children by emphasizing its “wiggle” characteristic was an obvious, non-novel concept, and the undisputed record supported independent development and prior use by the company; therefore, General Foods owed no compensation and was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the action.


Downey v. Gen. Foods Corp., 31 N.Y.2d 56 (N.Y. 1972)