The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed-in-part and reversed-in-part a preliminary injunction barring the use of PIZZA PUFF, concluding that the trademark owner failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits because the term was likely generic and, in any event, was descriptively and fairly used. Illinois Tamale Company, Inc. v. LC Trademarks, Inc., Case Nos. 24-3317; 25-1072; -1076; -1112 (7th Cir. Jan. 16, 2026) (Scudder, St. Eve, Jackson-Akiwumi, JJ.)
Illinois Tamale Company (Iltaco), a Chicago-based food company, has sold its signature “Pizza Puff” since 1976, distributing the product nationwide alongside other “Puff”-branded products. Iltaco owns federal trademark registrations for PIZZA PUFF (registered in 2009) and PUFF (registered in 2022).
In March 2024, Little Caesars introduced “Crazy Puffs,” small baked dough cups filled with pizza ingredients. The product launched as part of Little Caesars’ long-running “Crazy” line and was marketed prominently under the Little Caesars name, logo, and orange trade dress. Little Caesars secured its own federal registration for CRAZY PUFFS, and the United States Patent and Trademark Office identified no conflicting marks during examination.
Following the product launch, Iltaco sent a cease-and-desist letter claiming that CRAZY PUFFS and the phrase “4 Hand-Held Pizza Puffs” infringed its trademarks. When Little Caesars declined to change its marketing, Iltaco sued for trademark infringement and unfair competition and sought a preliminary injunction. The district court issued a split ruling, enjoining Little Caesars from using PIZZA PUFF but permitting continued use of CRAZY PUFFS and PUFF. Both parties appealed.
The Seventh Circuit found that the district court applied the wrong legal standard in assessing the protectability of PIZZA PUFF. The Court explained that rather than asking whether competitors could offer similar products without using the term, trademark protectability turns on the “primary significance” test, which is whether consumers primarily understand the term as a brand name or as the common name of a product. Because generic terms can never function as trademarks, the Court focused on evidence of consumer perception.
Applying that framework, the Seventh Circuit found substantial evidence that PIZZA PUFF was generic:
- More than 80% of surveyed consumers viewed the term as referring to a product category rather than a brand.
- Dictionary definitions treated the term generically.
- Third-party filings and industry usage consistently employed the phrase as a common name.
This evidence rebutted the presumption of validity afforded by Iltaco’s federal registration, and Iltaco failed to demonstrate a likelihood of proving distinctiveness at trial. The Court therefore concluded that Iltaco did not show a likelihood of success on the merits and reversed the preliminary injunction barring Little Caesars’ use of PIZZA PUFF.
The Seventh Circuit further found that even if PIZZA PUFF were distinctive, Iltaco still could not obtain injunctive relief because Little Caesars was likely to prevail on a fair-use defense. The Court emphasized that fair use requires only descriptive, good-faith use, and not a perfect fit between the challenged term and the product. Here, PIZZA PUFF plausibly described Little Caesars’ light, pizza-filled food and appeared in a purely descriptive context, not as a source identifier. Because the district court applied an overly narrow standard and failed to account for this descriptive use, the Court determined that the preliminary injunction was improperly granted.
Finally, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s refusal to enjoin Little Caesars’ use of CRAZY PUFFS. The Court explained that likelihood of confusion depends on the marks’ overall commercial impression, not isolated shared words. While PIZZA PUFF was descriptive, CRAZY PUFFS derived its source-identifying significance from Little Caesars’ established “Crazy” brand family. Given the marks’ dissimilarity and Iltaco’s independent failures on protectability and fair use, the Court concluded that no preliminary injunction was warranted.
Practice note: Trademark registrations, especially for product names with descriptive or generic roots, are vulnerable at the preliminary injunction stage if protectability is not rigorously supported by evidence of consumer perception. Courts will strictly apply the primary significance test, and strong survey, dictionary, or industry evidence can quickly overcome the presumption of validity, even for long-standing registered marks.
