A US judge dismissed Ben & Jerry’s bid to prevent its parent company, Unilever Plc, from selling its ice cream in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, which Ben & Jerry’s claimed violated its values.
Ben & Jerry’s did not deserve an injunction to stop ice cream sales and marketing, according to U.S. District Judge Andrew Carter in Manhattan, because it did not demonstrate irreparable harm or that customers would be confused.
On July 5, Ben & Jerry’s filed a lawsuit against Unilever, alleging that the sale of its Israeli business to local licensee Avi Zinger breached the terms of the deal under which Unilever purchased the Burlington, Vermont-based company in 2000.
The transaction occurred over a year after Ben & Jerry’s chose to discontinue sales in Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories, citing ‘inconsistency’ with the principles and social mission that it retained the right to promote.
Unilever responded that Ben & Jerry’s had no authority to halt the sale of the Israeli firm, and that the sale could not be reversed because it had already closed in late June.
The unique debate has shed light on Unilever’s ambition of providing social missions and meaning to its more than 400 brands.
Carter dismissed as ‘extremely speculative’ the notion that customers might be confused if Zinger introduced new goods with messages that conflicted with Ben & Jerry’s.
Carter said, ‘Ben & Jerry’s has provided no evidence of such confusion or the impact of the asserted misunderstanding.’
The judge remarked that products marketed in the West Bank will use Hebrew and Arabic trademarks rather than English.
Requests for comment from Ben & Jerry’s and Unilever were not immediately returned.
Dove soap, Hellmann’s mayonnaise, and Vaseline skin lotion are also Unilever brands.
Post Your Comments