## Facts

- Sunmark, Inc. manufactured and sold SweeTARTS, a fruit-flavored sugar candy, since 1963 under a distinctive stylized logo.
- Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc. produced cranberry juice drinks and used “sweet-tart” in advertising to describe the drinks’ flavor profile.
- Ocean Spray had used “sweet-tart” descriptively in advertising since 1942, including a 1973 television campaign and later sporadic print use.
- In 1991, Ocean Spray made “sweet-tart” a prominent theme of a major advertising campaign, including spoken repetition and on-screen display of the words.
- Sunmark sued under the Lanham Act and the Illinois Anti-Dilution Act, seeking to enjoin Ocean Spray’s use of “sweet-tart.”
- After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied a preliminary injunction, adopting a magistrate judge’s recommendation; Sunmark appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Ocean Spray’s use of “sweet-tart” was protected descriptive fair use under the Lanham Act or infringed SweeTARTS by creating a likelihood of confusion.
2. Whether Ocean Spray’s use of “sweet-tart” diluted Sunmark’s mark under the Illinois Anti-Dilution Act, including whether the term had the necessary distinctiveness or secondary meaning.
3. Whether Sunmark satisfied the requirements for a preliminary injunction, including a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction.
- Ocean Spray’s use of “sweet-tart” was descriptive of taste, used in good faith, and made otherwise than as a trademark, fitting the Lanham Act fair-use defense.
- Sunmark did not show a likelihood of consumer confusion between SweeTARTS candy and Ocean Spray juice products based on the record.
- Sunmark did not establish dilution under Illinois law because “sweet-tart” was descriptive and Sunmark did not show the requisite secondary meaning for the term.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to disturb the status quo pending a final decision.

## Legal Principles

- Descriptive fair use under the Lanham Act permits use of a term “otherwise than as a mark” when it describes the user’s goods and is used fairly and in good faith.
- Descriptive language that directly conveys product qualities (such as taste) is generally not subject to exclusive appropriation as against a good-faith descriptive user.
- Likelihood of confusion analysis considers, among other things, differences in the products and whether the challenged term is used as a source identifier or as descriptive copy.
- Under the Illinois Anti-Dilution Act, a plaintiff must show a sufficiently distinctive mark (often through secondary meaning); descriptive terms without strong proof of consumer association do not support dilution relief.
- Preliminary injunctions in trademark cases require a meaningful likelihood of success on the merits; weak infringement and dilution showings justify denial.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit upheld denial of preliminary injunctive relief because Ocean Spray’s long-running “sweet-tart” usage described flavor in good faith and not as a mark, Sunmark failed to show likely confusion, and the descriptive term lacked the distinctiveness and secondary meaning needed for an Illinois dilution claim.


Sunmark, Inc. v. Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc., 64 F.3d 1055 (7th Cir. 1995)