May 24, 2012

The Sneaky Chef Cookbook Gets "Thin" Copyright Protection

In a case involving competing cookbooks aimed at mitigation child and obesity, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a district court decision dismissing claims of copyright infringement, trademark infringement and trademark dilution. Missy Lapine, The Sneaky Chef, Inc., v. Jessica Seinfeld, Jerry Seinfeld, HarperCollins Publishers, Inc., Departure Productions LLC, Case No. 09-4423 (2nd Cir., April 28, 2010) (Swain, J.)

Missy Lapine, author of The Sneaky Chef: Simple Strategies for Hiding Healthy Foods in Kids' Favorite Meals, initiated the suit shortly after Jessica Seinfeld, wife of comedian Jerry Seinfeld, published Deceptively Delicious: Simple Secrets to Get Your Kids Eating Good Food. Lapine alleged that Seinfeld's book copied her cookbook, the innovative expression of the idea of sneaking vegetables into children's food "by means of €¦ comprehensive instructions for making and storing a variety of vegetable purees in advance, and using the purees in specially created recipes for children's favorite foods." Lapine also alleged trademark infringement, claiming that consumer confusion would likely result from the similarity of the two cookbooks, given their titles and similar cover designs featuring a "winking woman standing near carrots and holding a plate of brownies." 

The appeals court determined that the idea of tricking children into eating healthy foods by hiding vegetables and other health foods into more indulgent foods cannot be copyrighted, given the longstanding principle that "in no case does copyright protection extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, or method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such a work."  According to the appeals court, similarities between the two cookbooks in the expression of this idea, such as their instructions for preparing dishes or language about children's healthy eating, constituted "unprotectible elements that flow naturally from the work's theme rather than the author's creativity." Applying the "total concept and feel" test, the appeals court affirmed the district court ruling that the two cookbooks lacked the required substantial similarity to support an inference of copyright infringement, citing The Sneaky Chef's "extensive discussion of children's nutrition," and Deceptively Delicious' "bright colors and more photographs." 

The 2nd Circuit also rejected Lapine's claims of trademark infringement and trademark dilution, finding that the books differed enough in appearance to prevent consumer confusion and noting that the use of the famous "Seinfeld" name further reduces the likelihood of such confusion.

© 2012 McDermott Will & Emery

About the Author

Associate

Whitney D. Brown* is an associate in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP and is based in the Firm’s Washington, D.C., office.  She focuses her practice on copyright, patent and trademark litigation as well as trademark prosecution.

Whitney received her J.D., cum laude, from Boston University School of Law, where she served as a teaching assistant for the first year writing course and as an editor of the Public Interest Law Journal.  While in law school, she served as a legal intern in the Office of the General Counsel at WGBH Boston...

202 -756-8184

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.