Fletcher’s Original State Fair Corny Dogs Trademark Dispute
Background of the Plaintiff
The Plaintiff Fletcher’s Original State Fair Corny Dogs, LLC (“Fletcher’s”), a corporate entity, was a family business engaged in selling “corn dogs” for the last 80 years at the State Fair.
Defendants and Alleged Infringement
Fletcher’s filed a civil action against Victoria Jace Fletcher Christensen, Victoria Warner Fletcher, and their LLC, Fletcher-Warner Holdings LLC (“FWH”), for alleged trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act and Texas Anti-Dilution Act. The Defendants were accused of using similar marks consisting of the term “Fletch,” causing consumer confusion.
History of Fletcher’s Corn Dogs
The corny dog business began during World War II by brothers Neil “Fletch” Fletcher Sr. and Carl Fletcher, vaudeville performers in Dallas. After experimenting with hot dogs coated in cornmeal, they invented the “corn dog” and sold it at the State Fair of Texas starting in 1942. The business expanded to other events including golf tournaments, festivals, and football games.
Continuation of the Family Business
After the demise of Neil and Carl Fletcher, the business was managed by their sons, Skip and Bill Fletcher, and later by Skip’s wife, G.G. Fletcher. In 2001, Skip incorporated “Fletcher’s Original State Fair Corny Dogs, LLC” to continue the family business.
Trademark Ownership and Licensing
Fletcher’s lost ownership of its trademarks in 1980 due to financial difficulties. State Fair Foods Co., Inc. held the marks but licensed their use to Fletcher’s starting in 1992. Since 2011, Fletcher’s has had rights to operate under the license agreement.
Formation of Competing Business by Defendants
In 2019, Victoria Fletcher and her daughter Jace Christensen formed “Fletch” to sell corn dogs, despite having no ownership in Fletcher’s business. Fletcher’s sent a cease-and-desist letter on July 26, 2019, but the Defendants denied any wrongdoing.
Plaintiff’s Complaint and Relief Sought
Fletcher’s filed a lawsuit for trademark infringement, unfair competition, trademark dilution, and injunctive relief.
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
The Defendants argued that Fletcher’s Unlimited Inc. (“Unlimited”), a majority-owned company by G.G. Fletcher, was a required party under Rule 19. They claimed Unlimited also used the “Fletcher” mark and was necessary for complete relief.
District Court’s Ruling
The District Court rejected the Defendants’ motion, noting that Unlimited was a junior user of the mark, while Fletcher’s was the senior user. Citing precedents, the Court held that Rule 19 does not require the joinder of another infringing party.
Injunctive Relief Granted
The Court granted a preliminary injunction in favor of Fletcher’s, restraining the Defendants from using any confusingly similar marks.
