United States: Marshmallow Justice: 10 Tales Of Legal Fluff And Other Stuff

Last Updated: September 29 2015
Article by David A. Kluft

Just about one hundred years ago, Archibald Query of Somerville, Massachusetts invented the first commercial marshmallow cream, which he pedaled door-to-door in Union Square. Around 1917, he sold the recipe for $500 to two candy makers in Lynn who had just returned from World War I, and their company (Durkee-Mower) still makes Marshmallow Fluff today. In 2006, Union Square boosters began celebrating Query's achievement with the Fluff Festival, a day of activities literally and figuratively stuffed with marshmallows. In honor of the 10th annual Fluff Festival, which takes place on Saturday, September 26, 2015, we made good use of our state of the art legal research facilities to track down 10 interesting (to us) legal stories about marshmallows. Enjoy.

1. Marshmallow Dainties and Nazis have at least one thing in common. Around 1898, the National Biscuit Company (Nabisco) revolutionized the baked goods market by selling directly to consumers small amounts of treats, including Marshmallow Dainties, sealed in wax paper and packaged in boxes marked with the Nabisco red and white "in-er-seal" logo, which purportedly was derived from pagan and early Christian religious symbolism signifying spiritual triumph over the material world. In 1907, Portland-based Pacific Coast Biscuit Company started selling "Marshmallow Dainties" and other products in similar containers with another religiously inspired red and white logo: the swastika. In National Biscuit v. Pacific Coast Biscuit, Nabisco brought suit in the New Jersey Court of Chancery for trademark infringement and unfair competition, and the Court issued an injunction against further copycat packaging by Pacific Coast. In the 1920's, the Nazi party first began using the swastika symbol, but Pacific Coast was spared having to decide whether to abandon its mark as a show of patriotism, because in 1930 it was purchased by and absorbed into Nabisco.

2. The Marshmallow Diet is not endorsed by the City of New York. In 1984, food writer Carlson Wade sold an article to the GLOBE tabloid entitled "The Marshmallow Diet," which boasted of an "amazing new diet based on marshmallows," which are "jam-packed with appetite-slashing carbohydrates and proteins." In formulating the diet, Wade took an unrelated diet previously endorsed by the New York City Department of Health, substituted marshmallows for various ingredients, and then interviewed experts, including Diane Nelson, a New York City staff nutritionist. The final article stated that Nelson was "instrumental in preparing this marshmallow-based diet to help GLOBE readers lose up to a pound a day."Nelson, allegedly horrified to be professionally associated with Wade's made-up diet, sued the GLOBE (but not Wade) for defamation. In Nelson v. Globe, the Southern District of New York held that Nelson was not a public figure, and therefore the standard of fault applicable to the claim was "gross irresponsibility," not the higher bar of constitutional malice. However, summary judgment nevertheless was granted against Nelson's claim because any gross irresponsibility by Wade – an independent contractor – could not be imputed to the GLOBE.

3. Double-stuff s'mores are obvious. In 2013, inventor Michale J. Ure applied to patent a method for making an "incomparably delicious and kid-friendly campfire" confection that involved "skewering a first marshmallow; skewering one or more chocolate pieces having preformed indentations . . . skewering a second marshmallow," then roasting the combination and sticking it in between two graham crackers. The crux of the idea was that "traditional campfire s'mores are sub-par for the reason that the chocolate usually remains unmelted," whereas Ure's invention reconfigured the chocolate bar to produce "Smorsels," chocolate pieces better-suited to the process. There was already a registered patent related to making s'mores with heated chocolate, but Ure argued that his patent was different because it involved two marshmallows. In 2015, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found that the addition of a second marshmallow was obvious, absent unexpected results (none were shown), and affirmed the rejection of the application.

4. Fishermen are attracted to marshmallows; fish not so much. Brown Bear Baits purchased marshmallows in bulk, added mineral oil, dusted them with a neon coloring, and then sold them to anglers as marshmallow-shaped bait. Why did Brown Bear retain the marshmallow shape? The Treasury Department determined that this shape resembled the fish pellets used by certain fisheries to feed young trout; therefore, the bait was "processed so as to resemble [an] article considered more attractive to fish," and it was subject to a tax imposed on "artificial bait." Brown Bear argued, on the contrary, that the marshmallow shape was retained because it appealed to the fishermen, not to the fish. In 1994 the Court of Federal Claims, in Brown Bear Baits v. United States, agreed with Brown Bear that the product should not be taxed as artificial bait.

5. Size doesn't matter . . . anymore . . . in New York . . . for tax purposes. Speaking of taxes, the tax treatment of marshmallows in New York was once cited as a prime example of hypertechnical regulatory overreach or, as the New York Times reported, "a notorious symbol of all that was wrong with New York's ample bureaucracy." New York tax law used size as a proxy for function, so mini-marshmallows were tax exempt as a baking item, while large regular-sized marshmallows were taxed as a candy, prompting cries of "you can't make this stuff up" from journalists, shopkeepers and politicians alike. In 1998, after years of outrage, the New York legislature finally eliminated this "marshmallow discrimination." All marshmallows "of any size" are now exempt, perhaps a boon to small businesses, but no doubt a tragedy for demagogues who have one less thing to get indignant about.

6. Marshmallow Peeps are not likely to be confused with live puppies. In 1993, Just Born, Inc., the maker of Marshmallow Peeps, brought a state trademark dilution claim against the Farnam Companies, which marketed JUST BORN milk replacement products for infant pets. In response to Just Born's motion for an injunction, Farnam argued that the candy company would never be able to show secondary meaning in the animal feed industry, and therefore had no likelihood of success. Just Born argued that it need not show secondary meaning because its mark was arbitrary, not descriptive. The Eastern District of Pennsylvania refused to enjoin Farnam on two grounds. First, the Court found that Just Born didn't use its name prominently on its candy packaging, so the JUST BORN mark (as opposed to the clearly famous names of the company's candies) was not strong enough to be diluted. Second, the Court found that JUST BORN was in fact probably descriptive: the name described the fact that candy maker Sam Born had broken away from a business partner to found the company, so he called it "Just Born" – get it? Interestingly, the company's website contains a completely different – but just as plausible – explanation of the origin of the name.

7. Nuclear Marshmallows are synonymous with passive bad faith. The ICANN Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) for disputed domain names went into effect on December 1, 1999. Under the new process, a party could force the transfer of a domain name from the registrant if it could show that the domain had been both registered in bad faith and used in bad faith. One of the first cases subject to the process was brought by the Telstra Corporation, which was attempting to wrestle telstra.org away from a registrant identified as "Nuclear Marshmallows." Nuclear Marshmallows had not made use of the domain (i.e., it did not put up a website), never responded to the UDRP complaint, and basically didn't appear to exist at all other than as the mysterious registrant of telstra.org. The UDRP arbitration panel had no trouble finding that the domain had been registered in bad faith, but how could they find that it had been used in bad faith when it wasn't really being used at all? In a precedent-setting decision, the panel decided that passivity could amount to bad faith use. Here, Nuclear Marshmallows' passive holding of a domain name containing the trademark of a well-known company (at least in Australia), combined with the lack of evdience of good faith and the concealment of Nuclear Marshmallows' true identity, was sufficient for a determination of use in bad faith. Passive bad faith turned out to be an important concept in the domain name dispute arena, where registrants frequently conceal their identity and fail to answer the complaint, and consequently Telstra v. Nuclear Marshmallows has become the most cited case in the history of the UDRP process.

8. Marshmallow brands are only circumstantial evidence. On the night of February 16, 1933, a warehouse in Angelina County, Texas was robbed. A crate of Angelus brand marshmallows had been ripped open and two or three bags removed. A short time later, police pulled over Joe Yowell and, upon searching his car, found a bag of Angelus marshmallows under the seat. At trial, the arresting officer testified that "I did not find anything in that car other than that little package of marshmallows that was stolen." Yowell's counsel objected to this testimony, because there had been no proof offered that the marshmallows in Yowell's car were the ones from the warehouse. In Yowell v. State, the Texas Criminal Court of Appeals agreed that the officer's testimony was a legal conclusion based on purely circumstantial evidence, and reversed Yowell's conviction.

9. The Marshmallow Cream market used to be "nice, sleepy and cozy". In the 1960's, the National Dairy Company started a program to increase its share of the markets for fruit spread (which it already dominated) and marshmallow cream (which it had just entered). The program involved offering deep discounts in certain markets, thus eroding the market share of regional competitors. In the New England market, the marshmallow cream competitors were Durkee-Mower (Marshmallow Fluff controlled 92% of the market), Tweet, Inc. of Cambridge, and the Pennsylvania-based Cremo Manufacturing Company. The Federal Trade Commission found that National Dairy's discount program had a positive effect on competition in the marshmallow cream market, which previously had been "nice, sleepy and cozy." However, the FTC found that the same program with respect to fruit spread, a market which National Dairy already dominated, violated the price discrimination provisions of the Clayton Act. In 1967, FTC ordered National Dairy, in very broad terms not limited to fruit spreads, to knock it off. In National Dairy v. Federal Trade Commission, the Seventh Circuit affrimed the FTC's ruling with respect to fruit spread, but held that the FTC went too far in fashioning an order broad enough to encompass marshmallow cream.

10. The Fluffernutter is still not the official Massachusetts state sandwich. In 2006, Massachusetts State SenatorJarrett Barrios learned that his son's school cafeteria carried Fluffernutters (peanut butter and marshmallow cream sandwiches) not as a rare treat, but as a daily staple. Barrios proposed a bill that would limit the offering to once a week, which drew peals of parochial horror from legislators who just happened to represent the district where Marshmallow Fluff is made, and who retaliated by proposing a bill to make the Fluffernutter the official state sandwich. Barrios, whose district included part of Archibald Query's old stomping grounds, made it clear that he was NOT anti-fluff (he even co-sponsored the state sandwich proposal); he just didn't want his kids eating it every day. The resulting controversy, known as Fluffgate, ended in a draw of sorts. Barrios withdrew his bill, but the Fluffernutter is still not the state sandwich (although efforts in that regard continue). By the way, if you are not hip to Massachusetts cuisine and think the Fluffernutter is a strange idea, you should see what my relatives in Fall River call a sandwich.

To view Foley Hoag's Trademark and Copyright Law Blog please click here

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.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Events from this Firm
25 Oct 2017, Webinar, Boston, United States

Foley Hoag will present a 60-minute webinar on Wednesday, October 25 at 12:30 pm EDT, offering guidance for in-house counsel regarding the basics of trademark and design protection in the European Union. Attendees will learn about the opportunities and pitfalls to be on the lookout for when looking to secure, protect, and enforce an IP portfolio overseas.

1 Nov 2017, Webinar, Boston, United States

Please join Foley Hoag on Wednesday, November 1, 2017 for a webinar that covers the details of drafting an appropriate arbitration clause for your company’s commercial contracts.

9 Nov 2017, Conference, Waltham, United States

Please join us on Thursday, November 9 at the Westin Waltham Hotel for our quarterly New England M&A Forum, which brings the latest in market trends and recent legal developments to the New England M&A professionals' community.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.