Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 28 JANUARY 2026

Genericness Takes A Bite Out Of "Pizza Puff"

Be vigilant of how the public perceives your trademark, because if the primary significance of your mark has become the generic name of a good, you may lose your trademark.

United StatesIntellectual Property

Illinois Tamale Co., Inc. v. LC Trademarks, Inc., 2026 WL 125544 (7th Cir. Jan. 16, 2026)

Be vigilant of how the public perceives your trademark, because if the primary significance of your mark has become the generic name of a good, you may lose your trademark. In Illinois Tamale Co., Inc. v. LC Trademarks, Inc, the Seventh Circuit reversed a district court order enjoining LC Trademarks, Inc. and Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc. (collectively "Little Caesars") from using the mark "Pizza Puff" with its food products. The Seventh Circuit found that the district court erroneously used the wrong test for determining whether a mark is generic, and that under the correct test, Little Caesars's cited consumer survey data, dictionary definitions, and USPTO registrations showed that the term "Pizza Puff" is likely invalid for being perceived as a generic name for a class of food by consumers.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from