The Fletcher family, famous for its brand Fletcher’s Original Corny Dog (“Fletcher’s”), found itself embroiled in a trademark dispute that came from within. The Fletcher’s family feud came at the worst time for the Fletcher family as they had been in the middle of reinvigorating the brand for the first time in its eighty-year plus history.
Fletcher’s Family Feud Erupted Between Aunt and Niece
The Fletcher family was blindsided by the arrival of Fletch, a new company that boasted that they were “purveyors of fine stick food.” Surprisingly, Fletch has been created by the granddaughters of Neil Fletcher, the man who built Fletcher’s Original Corny Dog, introducing the corn dog to Texas decades ago.
While Fletcher’s Original Corny Dog, run by Amber Fletch (daughter of Neil Fletcher), is most well-known for selling its corndogs through the state fair, Fletch, is run by Amber’s niece, Jace Fletcher Christensen. And while most of the public had assumed that Fletch had the Fletcher family’s blessing, it quickly came to light that this was not so. Fletcher’s has said that they are not affiliated with Fletch, while Fletch claimed to be the more modern, healthier derivative of Fletcher’s.
Trademark Litigation Ensued with Fletcher’s Family Feud
When Fletcher’s filed suit claiming that the Fletch brand would cause consumer confusion, Fletch claimed that their corny dogs were not infringing because their corn dogs will be sold everywhere except the fair and because the companies used markedly different corndog recipes for their mix.
But seeing as how Fletch had already secured jobs with NASCAR, AT&T Stadium, University of Texas, the Houston Rodeo, and Dos Equis Pavilion, Fletcher’s felt that the immediate business partnerships were a result of Fletch using the goodwill associated with the Fletcher family name. Moreover, they noted that Christensen’s mother had continued to use her Fletcher’s email address, despite resigning from Fletcher’s, when reaching out to vendors for Christensen’s new company, Fletch.
A judge agreed with Amber Fletcher, awarding Fletcher’s with an injunction, forcing Fletch to rebrand itself. The judge agreed with Fletcher’s that the choice of using “Fletch” as the brand was specifically to trade on the goodwill already established by the Fletcher’s family brand. As such, the judge ruled that Christensen had to rebrand her company.
While Fletcher’s is pleased with the result, they claim that they wished that the dispute had not come to this. Fletcher’s claimed that they had offered Christensen the chance to license the mark but were rejected. And while the injunction order is unlikely to improve family relations, Fletcher’s has still been very supportive of Christensen’s business in the press. Only time will tell whether the injunction marks the end of the Fletcher’s family feud or is merely the beginning chapter in a long-lasting war.
Lesson’s Learned from the Fletcher’s Family Feud
The Fletcher’s corny dog feud shows the importance of taking legal action when a brand name is at risk of infringement, even when family is involved. The use of similar marks that are likely to cause consumer confusion can be especially damaging because:
-
it may cause the original brand to lose out on lucrative business deals;
-
may tarnish a brand if the new/infringing brand’s offering is inferior to the original brand;
-
may negatively impact how consumers feel about the original brand due to product believed to be related;
-
will allow the infringing brand to unjustly trade on the goodwill created in the original brand; and
-
may embroil both brands in costly litigation.