Search Site   
News Stories at a Glance
1-on-1 with House Ag leader Glenn Thompson 
Increasing production line speeds saves pork producers $10 per head
US soybean groups return from trade mission in Torreón, Mexico
Indiana fishery celebrates 100th year of operation
Katie Brown, new IPPA leader brings research background
January cattle numbers are the smallest in 75 years USDA says
Research shows broiler chickens may range more in silvopasture
Michigan Dairy Farm of the Year owners traveled an overseas path
Kentucky farmer is shining a light on growing coveted truffles
Farmer sentiment drops in the  latest Purdue/CME ag survey
Chairman of House Committee on Ag to visit Springfield Feb. 17
   
Archive
Search Archive  
   
U.S. District Court dismisses lawsuit over pork trademarks


WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Feb. 2 dismissed a lawsuit challenging the sale of the “Pork. The Other White Meat.” trademarks the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) sold to the National Pork Board (NPB) in 2006 for $35 million.

Last month, the USDA filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) against the agency over the sale by the NPPC to the NPB of the famous trademarks – a purchase the USDA had approved.

USDA’s Jan. 6 motion authorized the transaction as part of its oversight responsibilities under the 1985 Pork Act, which set up the pork checkoff program and established the National Pork Board in Des Moines to administer it.

“We are conducting a thorough review of the decision and evaluating our options,” said Ken Maschhoff, NPPC president and a Carlyle, Ill., pork producer.

“We are disappointed that the court partially denied the USDA’s motion to dismiss this frivolous lawsuit, one that was never based on a legitimate legal challenge to a federally approved transaction but instead was brought by an anti-meat activist group intent on eliminating meat consumption and harming a vast U.S. industry that employs hundreds of thousands of Americans and feeds billions of people at home and abroad.”

The USDA argued the lawsuit, filed by HSUS and two other parties, lacked merit, was barred by a six-year statute of limitations and that the plaintiffs failed to establish standing to file the lawsuit or show they were harmed by the sale of the trademarks. USDA’s evaluation of the sale of the trademarks showed they provided significant value to the pork industry.

In 2012, HSUS and other plaintiffs – which included Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, an environmental and animal activist group, and an individual Iowa resident who is a member of the group – claimed the trademarks were sold for an inflated price.

The U.S. District Court had dismissed the suit for lack of standing. But a federal appeals court in August 2015 reinstated it, sending the case back to the District Court. Before any proceedings on the merits of the lawsuit, the USDA inexplicably entered into settlement talks with the HSUS.

The NPPC sold the assets, widely regarded as one of the most recognizable marketing brand assets in history, for an estimated $35 million, financing the purchase over 20 years, making the NPB’s annual payment $3 million.

A USDA-conducted study later valued the trademarks at between $113 million-$132 million. Despite the nearly quadruple increase in value, the HSUS decided to continue its lawsuit.

The goal of the “Pork. The Other White Meat.” campaign was to increase consumer demand for pork and to dispel the meat’s reputation as a fatty protein. The Other White Meat campaign was developed to position pork as a good-tasting, versatile and nutritious meat that is easy to prepare and appropriate for any meal.

Since its inception, the campaign has gained tremendous recognition from consumers. In 2000, a study conducted by Northwestern University found The Other White Meat brand to be the fifth most memorable promotional tagline in the history of contemporary advertising.

“The NPPC enjoys the strong support of pork producers nationwide,” Maschhoff said. “Regardless of the final outcome in this case, we are well positioned to continue fighting for the livelihood of farmers and others in rural America.”

2/14/2018