Genericness Takes A Bite Out Of "Pizza Puff"

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.

On June 21, 2024, Illinois Tamale Company, Inc. ("Iltaco") sued Little Caesars for trademark infringement relating to the use of "Pizza Puff" in conjunction with Little Caesar's pizza products. The district court granted Iltaco's preliminary injunction motion enjoining Little Caesars from using Pizza Puff. The district court held Iltaco was likely to succeed in showing Pizza Puff was a protectable mark, that no fair use defense applied, and that there was substantial likelihood of confusion between both parties' use of Pizza Puff. Little Caesars appealed the preliminary injunction decision arguing that Pizza Puff is a generic term under the proper analysis.

The Seventh Circuit agreed with Little Caesars that Pizza Puff was likely generic. The court explained that whether a mark has become generic is decided by the mark's "primary significance" to the relevant public. The Seventh Circuit held that the district court's genericness analysis was erroneous because rather than considering the mark's primary significance to the relevant public, the district court focused on how other brands were able to sell similar products and compete effectively without using the Pizza Puff mark. The district court also failed to weigh Little Caesar's genericness evidence, including survey data showing 83.3% of consumers perceived Pizza Puff as a generic term for a dough-based, pizza-ingredient-filled food, while only 12.7% perceived the term as a brand name. Little Caesars also cited several dictionary definitions demonstrating that Pizza Puff was generic. While the district court ignored these definitions in its analysis, the Seventh Circuit held that these definitions weighed in favor of genericness because it showed how the public uses and perceives the term. Finally, the Seventh Circuit held that the district court erred by ignoring evidence of third parties using Pizza Puff in trademark applications at the USPTO as a class of goods which indicated Pizza Puff's genericness.

This decision highlights the importance for trademark owners to monitor whether their mark could be considered generic by consumers. Trademark owners should aggressively employ strategies to preserve the distinctiveness in their mark such as continued advertising of the mark as a brand, use of the trademark symbol with the mark, and active enforcement against unauthorized users of your mark who use the mark in a generic way. If feasible, trademark owners should consider conducting consumer surveys to see whether consumers consider your mark a brand or a generic term. Failing to do these things could result in your mark being found cooked as generic.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.