Court Holds No Trademark Infringement and/or False Advertising of “Parks” Trademark by use of “Park’s Finest”

Parks, LLC v. Tyson Foods, Inc.

Factual Allegations:

  • Tyson launched "Park's Finest" hot dogs
  • Parks LLC sells sausages and other meat products
  • Parks claims that Tyson infringed upon its "Parks" trademark and engaged in false advertising

Click here to view image.


  • Court found no trademark infringement or false advertising
  • Wasn't "false advertising" because:
    • Calling Tyson's product "Park's Finest" does not relate to the "nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin" of the product
    • Tysonss use of "Parks" didn't function as a trademark
  • Wasn't trademark infringement because:
    • Consumers would understand that the "Parks" in "Park's Finest" was a reference to Tyson's "Ball Park"  brand , not Parks meat products

Court Affirms FTC Decision that Website Misrepresented Source of its Content

Fanning V. FTC


  • was a self-proclaimed reputation management website with few users
  • created the vast majority of profiles by using a computer program—a fact did not disclose


  • is responsible for all reasonable interpretations of its claims
  • referenced its "millions" of users; its disclaimers said that it could not be held liable for content because the content reflected the views of its users; and the "Post a Jerk" page created a "net impression" that the website contained wholly user generated content

Class Action Over Charitable Raffle in IL

Anderson v. Naperville Rotary Charities and Trident Interactive


  • NRC has operated a charitable raffle with the assistance of vendor, Trident
  • Plaintiff seeks full refund for all raffle tickets purchased


NRC violated IL Raffles Act by:

  • Selling raffle tickets outside the jurisdiction in which it has a raffle license
  • Paying a third party vendor to help operate the raffle
  • Using the Internet to sell raffle tickets
  • Advertising in various media outlets
  • Receiving proceeds in excess of $2,000