Splenda vs. Same with Sugar case rages on

By: Taina Rosa
December 14, 2004
Caribbean Business

The legal battle between Same with Sugar and Splenda continues. The maker of Same With Sugar has recently filed a lawsuit against Splenda’s manufacturer claiming its slogan is misleading.

Meanwhile, Splenda’s team is continuing its trade-dress lawsuit, seeking to force Same with Sugar to change the color of its packets. Splenda claims consumers might mistake Same with Sugar for Splenda, as their packets are both yellow with blue lettering.

On Aug. 12, CARIBBEAN BUSINESS reported on the trade-dress lawsuit after the federal court ordered Same with Sugar’s manufacturer, Merisant, to recall the product and change the design of the packaging. It was determined that is was confusingly similar to that of Splenda.

Although Merisant changed the box’s design, the packets stayed the same. If Merisant loses this case, some sources have said it could face severe financial penalties, among them having to pay Splenda’s maker, McNeil Nutritionals, the revenue Same with Sugar brought in during the time the products’ boxes and packets could be easily confused with each other.

Is sugar by any other name just as sweet?

Merisant, meanwhile, has said Splenda’s slogan (“made from sugar, so its tastes like sugar”) is misleading because Splenda isn’t made from sugar, but from a synthetic chemical. Merisant spokesman Jeff Leshay said, “Splenda’s advertising creates the perception that its product is natural, when it is neither natural nor made with sugar. We believe this is an unfair practice.”

Merisant filed the complaint in a Philadelphia federal court on Nov. 30. However, McNeil Nutritionals had already filed a motion with the federal court in Puerto Rico Nov. 18, seeking to have its advertising claims declared valid. A source close to Splenda told CARIBBEAN BUSINESS that Splenda is made from sugar because it uses sucralose, made by chlorinating sugar.

This source added that Merisant is suing in retaliation for having to recall Same with Sugar and redesign the packaging. “Splenda has used the same slogan for four years,” said the source. “Why didn’t they present this at the previous hearings under Judge [Jay] Garcia Gregory? That should have been a compulsory counterclaim.”

Merisant’s Leshay responded that it had taken a long time to carry out enough consumer research to determine whether Splenda’s advertising is misleading. Merisant, meanwhile, wants McNeil Nutritionals to pay it for cash damages incurred during case and to launch an advertising campaign clarifying the fact that Splenda is synthetic.