Pizza Hut v. Papa John's, 00-10071

Citation227 F.3d 489
Decision Date19 September 2000
Docket NumberNo. 00-10071,00-10071
Parties(5th Cir. 2000) PIZZA HUT, INC., Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellee, v. PAPA JOHN'S INTERNATIONAL, INC.; PAPA JOHN'S USA, INC., Defendants-Counter Claimants-Appellants
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas Before POLITZ, JOLLY, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

E. GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge:

This appeal presents a false advertising claim under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, resulting in a jury verdict for the plaintiff, Pizza Hut. At the center of this appeal is Papa John's four word slogan "Better Ingredients. Better Pizza."

The appellant, Papa John's International Inc. ("Papa John's"), argues that the slogan "cannot and does not violate the Lanham Act" because it is "not a misrepresentation of fact." The appellee, Pizza Hut, Inc., argues that the slogan, when viewed in the context of Papa John's overall advertising campaign, conveys a false statement of fact actionable under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. The district court, after evaluating the jury's responses to a series of special interrogatories and denying Papa John's motion for judgment as a matter of law, entered judgment for Pizza Hut stating:

When the 'Better Ingredients. Better Pizza.' slogan is considered in light of the entirety of Papa John's post-May 1997 advertising which violated provisions of the Lanham Act and in the context in which it was juxtaposed with the false and misleading statements contained in Papa John's print and broadcast media advertising, the slogan itself became tainted to the extent that its continued use should be enjoined.

We conclude that (1) the slogan, standing alone, is not an objectifiable statement of fact upon which consumers would be justified in relying, and thus not actionable under section 43(a); and (2) while the slogan, when utilized in connection with some of the post-May 1997 comparative advertising--specifically, the sauce and dough campaigns--conveyed objectifiable and misleading facts, Pizza Hut has failed to adduce any evidence demonstrating that the facts conveyed by the slogan were material to the purchasing decisions of the consumers to which the slogan was directed. Thus, the district court erred in denying Papa John's motion for judgment as a matter of law. We therefore reverse the judgment of the district court denying Papa John's motion for judgment as a matter of law, vacate its final judgment, and remand the case to the district court for entry of judgment for Papa John's.

I
A

Pizza Hut is a wholly owned subsidiary of Tricon Global Restaurants. With over 7000 restaurants (both company and franchisee-owned), Pizza Hut is the largest pizza chain in the United States. In 1984, John Schnatter founded Papa John's Pizza in the back of his father's tavern. Papa John's has grown to over 2050 locations, making it the third largest pizza chain in the United States.

In May 1995, Papa John's adopted a new slogan: "Better Ingredients. Better Pizza." In 1996, Papa John's filed for a federal trademark registration for this slogan with the United States Patent & Trademark Office ("PTO"). Its application for registration was ultimately granted by the PTO. Since 1995, Papa John's has invested over $300 million building customer goodwill in its trademark "Better Ingredients. Better Pizza." The slogan has appeared on millions of signs, shirts, menus, pizza boxes, napkins and other items, and has regularly appeared as the "tag line" at the end of Papa John's radio and television ads, or with the company logo in printed advertising.

On May 1, 1997, Pizza Hut launched its "Totally New Pizza" campaign. This campaign was the culmination of "Operation Lightning Bolt," a nine-month, $50 million project in which Pizza Hut declared "war" on poor quality pizza. From the deck of a World War II aircraft carrier, Pizza Hut's president, David Novak, declared "war" on "skimpy, low quality pizza." National ads aired during this campaign touted the "better taste" of Pizza Hut's pizza, and "dared" anyone to find a "better pizza."

In early May 1997, Papa John's launched its first national ad campaign. The campaign was directed towards Pizza Hut, and its "Totally New Pizza" campaign. In a pair of TV ads featuring Pizza Hut's co-founder Frank Carney, Carney touted the superiority of Papa John's pizza over Pizza Hut's pizza. Although Carney had left the pizza business in the 1980's, he returned as a franchisee of Papa John's because he liked the taste of Papa John's pizza better than any other pizza on the market. The ad campaign was remarkably successful. During May 1997, Papa John's sales increased 11.7 percent over May 1996 sales, while Pizza Hut's sales were down 8 percent.

On the heels of the success of the Carney ads, in February 1998, Papa John's launched a second series of ads touting the results of a taste test in which consumers were asked to compare Papa John's and Pizza Hut's pizzas. In the ads, Papa John's boasted that it "won big time" in taste tests. The ads were a response to Pizza Hut's "dare" to find a "better pizza." The taste test showed that consumers preferred Papa John's traditional crust pizzas over Pizza Hut's comparable pizzas by a 16-point margin (58% to 42%). Additionally, consumers preferred Papa John's thin crust pizzas by a fourteen-point margin (57% to 43%).

Following the taste test ads, Papa John's ran a series of ads comparing specific ingredients used in its pizzas with those used by its "competitors." During the course of these ads, Papa John's touted the superiority of its sauce and its dough. During the sauce campaign, Papa John's asserted that its sauce was made from "fresh, vine-ripened tomatoes," which were canned through a process called "fresh pack," while its competitors--including Pizza Hut-- make their sauce from remanufactured tomato paste. During the dough campaign, Papa John's stated that it used "clear filtered water" to make its pizza dough, while the "biggest chain" uses "whatever comes out of the tap." Additionally, Papa John's asserted that it gives its yeast "several days to work its magic," while "some folks" use "frozen dough or dough made the same day." At or near the close of each of these ads, Papa John's punctuated its ingredient comparisons with the slogan "Better Ingredients. Better Pizza."

Pizza Hut does not appear to contest the truthfulness of the underlying factual assertions made by Papa John's in the course of these ads. Pizza Hut argues, however, that its own independent taste tests and other "scientific evidence" establishes that filtered water makes no difference in pizza dough, that there is no "taste" difference between Papa John's "fresh-pack" sauce and Pizza Hut's "remanufactured" sauce, and that fresh dough is not superior to frozen dough. In response to Pizza Hut's "scientific evidence," Papa John's asserts that "each of these 'claims' involves a matter of common sense choice (fresh versus frozen, canned vegetables and fruit versus remanufactured paste, and filtered versus unfiltered water) about which individual consumers can and do form preferences every day without 'scientific' or 'expert' assistance."

In November 1997, Pizza Hut filed a complaint regarding Papa John's "Better Ingredients. Better Pizza." advertising campaign with the National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau, an industry self-regulatory body. This complaint, however, did not produce satisfactory results for Pizza Hut.

B

On August 12, 1998, Pizza Hut filed a civil action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas charging Papa John's with false advertising in violation of Section 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act. The suit sought relief based on the above-described TV ad campaigns, as well as on some 249 print ads. On March 10, 1999, Pizza Hut filed an amended complaint. Papa John's answered the complaints by denying that its advertising and slogan violated the Lanham Act. Additionally, Papa John's asserted a counterclaim, charging Pizza Hut with engaging in false advertising. The parties consented to a jury trial before a United States magistrate judge. The parties further agreed that the liability issues were to be decided by the jury, while the equitable injunction claim and damages award were within the province of the court.

The trial began on October 26, 1999, and continued for over three weeks. At the close of Pizza Hut's case, and at the close of all evidence, Papa John's moved for a judgment as a matter of law. The motions were denied each time. The district court, without objection, submitted the liability issue to the jury through special interrogatories.1 The special issues submitted to the jury related to (1) the slogan and (2) over Papa John's objection, certain classes of groups of advertisements referred to as "sauce claims," "dough claims," "taste test claims," and "ingredients claims."

On November 17, 1999, the jury returned its responses to the special issues finding that Papa John's slogan, and its "sauce claims" and "dough claims" were false or misleading and deceptive or likely to deceive consumers.2 The jury also determined that Papa John's "taste test" ads were not deceptive or likely to deceive consumers, and that Papa John's "ingredients claims" were not false or misleading.3 As to Papa John's counterclaims against Pizza Hut, the jury found that two of the three Pizza Hut television ads at issue were false or misleading and deceptive or likely to deceive consumers.4

On January 3, 2000, the trial court, based upon the jury's verdict and the evidence presented by the parties in support of injunctive relief and on the issue of damages, entered a Final Judgment and issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order. The court concluded that the "Better Ingredients. Better Pizza." slogan was "consistent with the legal definition of non-actionable puffery"...

To continue reading

Request your trial
233 cases
  • Nestle USA, Inc. v. Ultra Distribuciones Mundiales S.A. De C.V.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas
    • February 1, 2021
    ...and(5) The plaintiff has been or is likely to be injured as a result of the statement at issue. Pizza Hut, Inc. v. Papa John's Intern., Inc., 227 F.3d 489, 495 (5th Cir. 2000).11 The Court finds that, at this stage of the litigation, Plaintiffs have adequately pled their false designation o......
  • Z-Tel Communications v. Sbc Communications
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas
    • August 6, 2004
    ...members of the buying public, as well as through circumstantial evidence, e.g., consumer surveys or consumer reaction tests.'). 227 F.3d 489, 497 (5th Cir.2000). b. The Court cannot usefully require Plaintiff to adduce evidence of actual consumer confusion, and yet not allow Plaintiff the o......
  • ADT, LLC v. Capital Connect, Inc., CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15–CV–2252–G
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas
    • October 28, 2015
    ...are ambiguous or true but misleading, the plaintiff must present evidence of actual deception. See Pizza Hut, Inc. v. Papa John's International, Inc., 227 F.3d 489, 497 (5th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 920, 121 S.Ct. 1355, 149 L.Ed.2d 285 (2001) ; American Council of Certified Podiatr......
  • Bracco Diagnostics, Inc. v. Amersham Health, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • March 25, 2009
    ...Inc., 633 F.2d 746, 753 (8th Cir.1980); 4 McCarty on Trademark and Unfair Competition § 27:36 (4th ed.) Pizza Hut, Inc. v. Papa John's Int'l, Inc., 227 F.3d 489, 497 (5th Cir.2000). In this case, as discussed supra, the Court finds that GEH disseminated literally false statements, and GEH h......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • Federal Law of Unfair Competition
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Business Torts and Unfair Competition Handbook Business tort law
    • January 1, 2014
    ...497 F.3d at 158 (citing Avis Rent A Car Sys. v. Hertz Corp., 782 F.2d 381, 385 (2d Cir. 1986); Pizza Hut, Inc. v. Papa John’s Int’l, 227 F.3d 489, 495 n.5 (5th Cir. 2000) (“the statement must be viewed in the light of the overall context in which it appears”) (citing Avis Rent A Car Sys., 7......
  • False Influencing
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 109-1, October 2020
    • October 1, 2020
    ...WL 121559, at *1–2 (S.D.N.Y. June 9, 1982). 184. WILLIAMS, supra note 178, § 3.01. 185. See Pizza Hut, Inc. v. Papa John’s Int’l, Inc., 227 F.3d 489, 498–99 (5th Cir. 2000); Richard J. Leighton, Materiality and Puff‌ing in Lanham Act False Advertising Cases: The Proofs, Presumptions, and Pr......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Advertising Claim Substantiation Handbook
    • January 1, 2017
    ...Care, 660 F.3d 943 (6th Cir. 2011) .............................................................. 12 Pizza Hut, Inc. v. Papa John’s Int’l, 227 F.3d 489 (5th Cir. 2000) ............................................ 17, 19, 45, 48 POM Wonderful LLC v. Organic Juice USA, Inc., 769 F. Supp. 2d 1......
  • Sources of Advertising Law
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Advertising Claim Substantiation Handbook
    • January 1, 2017
    ...implied message and thereby deceived a significant portion of the recipients becomes critical”). 62. Pizza Hut, Inc. v. Papa John’s Int’l, 227 F.3d 489, 497-98 (5th Cir. 2000). 63. Id. at 497-98. 64. See Johnson & Johnson-Merck Consumer Pharms. v. Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Pharms, 19 F.3d 125, 12......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT