Taste the Victory: Wrigley’s Win in Skittles Trademark Dispute


Taste the Victory: Wrigley’s Win in Skittles Trademark Dispute

Wrigley and Terphogz Settle Trademark Dispute Over "ZKITTLEZ" Name

New Brunswick’s First Private Cannabis Store Now Open!
Challenges Of Limited Cannabis Retail In Quebec
You Won’t Believe What Ben & Jerry’s Co-Founder is Doing Next – Cannabis Surprise

Wrigley, the renowned candy manufacturer responsible for producing multi-colored fruit-flavored Skittles, has reached a settlement in a trademark infringement lawsuit against Terphogz, a seller of cannabis-related merchandise. The lawsuit arose from Terphogz marketing its products under the name “ZKITTLEZ,” which Wrigley considered to be infringing on the Skittles trademark. In this article, we will explore the details of the settlement and the implications it holds for both parties involved.

Background on Wrigley and Skittles

Wrigley, a prominent Chicago-based unit of Mars Wrigley, has a long-standing reputation in the confectionery industry. Skittles, one of Wrigley’s most beloved creations, has gained immense popularity as a fruit-flavored candy. Its vibrant colors and unique taste have made it a household name among candy enthusiasts worldwide.

The Alleged Trademark Infringement

Wrigley initiated legal action against Terphogz, claiming trademark infringement. The company alleged that Terphogz’s use of the “ZKITTLEZ” name for its cannabis-related sales bore a striking resemblance to Skittles. This infringement not only jeopardized the distinctiveness of the Skittles brand but also posed a threat to the goodwill it had garnered over nearly five decades.

Proposed Permanent Injunction

To resolve the dispute, Wrigley and Terphogz have submitted a proposed permanent injunction to the Chicago federal court. As per the agreement, Terphogz will refrain from using the terms Skittles, Zkittlez, or any similar variations in relation to its cannabis-related sales. Furthermore, Terphogz will discontinue using slogans like “Taste the Z Train” and “Taste the Strain Bro,” which Wrigley deemed too reminiscent of Skittles’ long-standing slogan, “Taste the Rainbow.” Additionally, Terphogz has agreed to relinquish the domain name zkittlez.com, although it may incorporate the letter “Z” as long as it does not cause confusion among consumers.

Top Reads: Incredible Breakthrough: Circle K’s Trailblazing Cannabis Pact

Court Approval and Legal Response

The settlement between Wrigley and Terphogz is subject to court approval. At the time of writing, there has been no immediate response from the legal representatives of either party. Once the court reviews and approves the proposed injunction, it will become legally binding for both parties.

Wrigley’s Claims and Goodwill

Wrigley accused Terphogz of significantly undermining the goodwill established by the Skittles brand through its unregulated use of Skittles marks to promote cannabis, drug paraphernalia, and other related merchandise. Terphogz’s products even incorporated a rainbow theme, further exacerbating the potential confusion among consumers.

Previous Lawsuits and Trademark Infringement

This is not the first time Wrigley has taken legal action to protect its trademarks. In the past, the company has filed lawsuits against other brands, such as Life Savers and Starburst, for similar trademark infringement issues. These cases highlight Wrigley’s commitment to safeguarding its intellectual property and brand integrity.

Terphogz’s Defense and Intellectual Property

Terphogz, a California-based company located in Mendocino, argued that it does not directly sell cannabis products. Instead, it licenses its intellectual property rights to other companies operating within the legal cannabis industry. According to court documents, Terphogz claimed that its licensed partners are responsible for the sale and distribution of cannabis products bearing the “ZKITTLEZ” name.


The settlement between Wrigley and Terphogz marks a significant step toward resolving the trademark infringement dispute. It highlights the importance of protecting trademarks and preserving brand identities. Wrigley’s efforts to defend its trademarks against unauthorized use demonstrate its commitment to maintaining the integrity of its iconic brands. As the legal process unfolds and the proposed injunction receives court approval, the outcome will shape the future landscape of trademark protection and intellectual property rights.


FAQ 1: What are trademarks and why are they important? Trademarks are legally registered symbols, names, or phrases that distinguish and identify specific products or services. They play a crucial role in protecting brand identities, preventing confusion among consumers, and ensuring the exclusive rights of the trademark holder.

FAQ 2: Can two similar product names coexist in different industries? In some cases, two similar product names can coexist in different industries if there is no likelihood of confusion among consumers. However, it depends on various factors such as the strength of the trademark, the similarity of the products or services, and the overall market perception.

FAQ 3: How long does it usually take for a trademark infringement lawsuit to be settled? The duration of a trademark infringement lawsuit varies depending on the complexity of the case, the legal procedures involved, and the court’s schedule. It can take several months or even years for a settlement to be reached or a trial to conclude.

FAQ 4: Are there any penalties for violating a trademark? Trademark violations can result in legal consequences, including injunctions, monetary damages, and even the requirement to cease infringing activities. The severity of the penalties depends on the nature and extent of the infringement, as determined by the court.

FAQ 5: Can a company use a letter from a trademarked name to avoid infringement? Using a single letter from a trademarked name is generally not sufficient to avoid infringement if it still causes confusion among consumers. The courts consider various factors, such as the overall similarity, the context of use, and the potential for consumer deception, when evaluating trademark infringement cases.