In today’s world, tea drinkers are accustomed to choosing between loose leaf and bagged teas.
However, tea bags did not appear until the 20th century. While at least one U.S. patent for a tea bag
was filed in 1903, tea bags did not make a widespread commercial appearance until 1904, when New
York tea and coffee merchant Thomas Sullivan began using silk sachets to convey samples of his teas.
Rather than cutting sachets open to use the tea leaves separately, customers used them as tea bags.
Silk gave way to gauze and eventually, in 1930, the Technical Papers Corporation patented a paper
fiber tea bag. The Lipton Tea Company patented its famous four-sided Flo-Thru tea bag in 1952.
Joseph Tetley & Co. introduced its own bagged tea to the British public in 1953, but as late as the 1960’
s only about three percent of British tea was consumed from tea bags. Today ninety-six percent of
British tea cups come from tea bags.
The modern, rectangular tea bag had been in use since 1944. Then, in 1989 Lyons Tetley introduced
the round tea bag as a way of improving tea sales in the UK. The round tea bag proved quite popular
and was soon copied.
In J. Lyons & Co. Ltd. v. The Republic of Tea, Inc., 892 F. Supp. 486 (S.D.N.Y. 1995), the court
dismissed trademark infringement suit on account of the fact that the defendants had already filed
presumptive declaratory judgment actions against the plaintiff in three different district courts.
Commentators on trademark law view this case as an example of successfully using a presumptive
declaratory judgment action in federal court to respond to a person’s claim through cease and desist
letters to a given trademark. The various lawsuits filed among the parties were settled out of court after
the Southern District of New York reached its decision in this case. Ironically, in 2004, Lyons Tea
switched to a pyramidal tea bag.
Apart from trademark and trade dress disputes, the tea packets can themselves give rise to a patent
claim. This was the case in Cooper Tea Packet Co., Inc. v. United Grocers’ Co., Inc., 46 F.2d 477, 8 U.
S.P.Q. 234 (E.D.N.Y. 1931), which concerned a dispute over a patented tea bag design, although the
infringement claims were ultimately dismissed in that case.
Tea accessories can also result in a trade dress infringement and design patent infringement, as in
cases where one company is alleged to have used another company’s design for a tea kettle. Chantal
Cookware Corp. v. Vitrex Gourmet Corp., No. H-97-3978 (S.D. Tex.). The “advertising injury” provision
of a CGL policy may provide a defense to such a claim, so long as the allegation of trade dress
infringement is coupled with some indication that the complaint includes the infringer’s use of the
allegedly infringing trade dress in an advertisement. See R.C. Bigelow, Inc. v. Lib. Mut. Ins. Co., 287 F.
3d 242, 62 U.S.P.Q.2d 1529 (2d Cir. 2002).
In this last case, Bigelow introduced new
packaging for a line of herbal teas, which
Celestial claimed infringed on their trade
dress. The Second Circuit did not find
absolutely that there would be
coverage, but only that a duty to
defend existed because coverage
was plausible.
It is not enough that the infringer
merely have used the supposedly
infringing trade dress in advertising
materials – the use in advertisement
must colorably be part of the claim.
See Ekco Group, Inc. v. Travelers
Indem. Co. of Ill., 273 F.3d 409,
61 U.S.P.Q.2d 1038 (1st Cir. 2001).
In the last case, the infringement
against design patent and trade
dress dealt with a supposedly
identical metal tea kettle and
packaging – but no claim against
its use in advertising, so there was
no duty to defend. This insurance
coverage ruling was a bad result for Ekco, which then had to defend the Chantal case above.
However, tea bags did not appear until the 20th century. While at least one U.S. patent for a tea bag
was filed in 1903, tea bags did not make a widespread commercial appearance until 1904, when New
York tea and coffee merchant Thomas Sullivan began using silk sachets to convey samples of his teas.
Rather than cutting sachets open to use the tea leaves separately, customers used them as tea bags.
Silk gave way to gauze and eventually, in 1930, the Technical Papers Corporation patented a paper
fiber tea bag. The Lipton Tea Company patented its famous four-sided Flo-Thru tea bag in 1952.
Joseph Tetley & Co. introduced its own bagged tea to the British public in 1953, but as late as the 1960’
s only about three percent of British tea was consumed from tea bags. Today ninety-six percent of
British tea cups come from tea bags.
The modern, rectangular tea bag had been in use since 1944. Then, in 1989 Lyons Tetley introduced
the round tea bag as a way of improving tea sales in the UK. The round tea bag proved quite popular
and was soon copied.
In J. Lyons & Co. Ltd. v. The Republic of Tea, Inc., 892 F. Supp. 486 (S.D.N.Y. 1995), the court
dismissed trademark infringement suit on account of the fact that the defendants had already filed
presumptive declaratory judgment actions against the plaintiff in three different district courts.
Commentators on trademark law view this case as an example of successfully using a presumptive
declaratory judgment action in federal court to respond to a person’s claim through cease and desist
letters to a given trademark. The various lawsuits filed among the parties were settled out of court after
the Southern District of New York reached its decision in this case. Ironically, in 2004, Lyons Tea
switched to a pyramidal tea bag.
Apart from trademark and trade dress disputes, the tea packets can themselves give rise to a patent
claim. This was the case in Cooper Tea Packet Co., Inc. v. United Grocers’ Co., Inc., 46 F.2d 477, 8 U.
S.P.Q. 234 (E.D.N.Y. 1931), which concerned a dispute over a patented tea bag design, although the
infringement claims were ultimately dismissed in that case.
Tea accessories can also result in a trade dress infringement and design patent infringement, as in
cases where one company is alleged to have used another company’s design for a tea kettle. Chantal
Cookware Corp. v. Vitrex Gourmet Corp., No. H-97-3978 (S.D. Tex.). The “advertising injury” provision
of a CGL policy may provide a defense to such a claim, so long as the allegation of trade dress
infringement is coupled with some indication that the complaint includes the infringer’s use of the
allegedly infringing trade dress in an advertisement. See R.C. Bigelow, Inc. v. Lib. Mut. Ins. Co., 287 F.
3d 242, 62 U.S.P.Q.2d 1529 (2d Cir. 2002).
In this last case, Bigelow introduced new
packaging for a line of herbal teas, which
Celestial claimed infringed on their trade
dress. The Second Circuit did not find
absolutely that there would be
coverage, but only that a duty to
defend existed because coverage
was plausible.
It is not enough that the infringer
merely have used the supposedly
infringing trade dress in advertising
materials – the use in advertisement
must colorably be part of the claim.
See Ekco Group, Inc. v. Travelers
Indem. Co. of Ill., 273 F.3d 409,
61 U.S.P.Q.2d 1038 (1st Cir. 2001).
In the last case, the infringement
against design patent and trade
dress dealt with a supposedly
identical metal tea kettle and
packaging – but no claim against
its use in advertising, so there was
no duty to defend. This insurance
coverage ruling was a bad result for Ekco, which then had to defend the Chantal case above.
Law of Tea.com
A WEB RESOURCE FOR THE TEA INDUSTRY
A WEB RESOURCE FOR THE TEA INDUSTRY
COURT DECISIONS OF INTEREST
THE ROUND TEA BAG CASES
THE ROUND TEA BAG CASES
| © 2009 Law of Tea.com |