In Illinois Tamale Co., Inc. v. LC Trademarks, Inc., et al., 24-3317, 2026 WL 125543 (7th Cir. Jan. 16, 2026), Chicago-based Illinois Tamale Company, Inc. (“Illinois Tamale”) brought a trademark infringement action in the Northern District of Illinois against Little Caesar’s, alleging that the national pizza chain infringed upon its registered “Puff” trademarks used on its various food products. One of Illinois Tamale’s registered marks is “PIZZA PUFF.” Having continuously used the mark for more than five years, Illinois Tamale’s “PIZZA PUFF” was incontestable under the Lanham Act, affording the mark the highest status of protection.
In March 2024, Little Caesar’s launched a new product line featuring the terms “Crazy Puffs” and “Pizza Puffs.” Illinois Tamale moved for a preliminary injunction and the district court found that Illinois Tamale was likely to succeed on the merits of its trademark infringement claim of its “PIZZA PUFF” registered trademark. In so holding, the district court used a standard stating that a mark was protectable where other brands selling similar products “are able to compete effectively without using the plaintiff’s ‘PIZZA PUFFS’ mark[]” – including Hot Pockets and Totino’s Pizza Rolls. Under this standard, the district court held that “PIZZA PUFF” was not generic and still protectable because other companies could use different terms and marks to describe their competing products.
Little Caesar’s appealed the injunction and the U.S. Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that the district court should have instead used the “primary significance” test: “[w]hether a registered mark has become a generic term turns on the mark’s ‘primary significance’ to the relevant public.” LC Trademarks, 2026 WL 125543 at *4 (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1064(3)). In utilizing the wrong test, the district court failed to consider the significant evidence submitted by Little Caesar’s showing that the “PIZZA PUFF” trademark had become generic and thus unworthy of trademark protection. First, Little Caesar’s presented survey evidence showing that 83.3% of consumers perceiving “pizza puff” as a common term and not a brand name. Second, Little Caesar’s presented several definitions of crowd-sourced dictionaries to show the term has acquired a generic meaning. Third, Little Caesar’s introduced several third-party USPTO applications and registrations indicating that the term “pizza puff” has widespread generic use in the pizza industry. The Seventh Circuit reversed the preliminary injunction and agreed with Little Caesar’s that its evidence showed that “PIZZA PUFF” had become a generic mark. The appellate court also affirmed the district court’s denial of injunctive relief for infringement of the “PUFF” and “CRAZY PUFFS” marks, giving Little Caesar’s a clean sweep against Illinois Tamale’s trademark infringement claims.
With this reversal in the Seventh Circuit, Little Caesar’s pulled off a rare feat in trademark law: overcoming the strong presumption of validity of an incontestable, registered trademark by presenting significant evidence that “PIZZA PUFF” is a generic term.
Chilivis Grubman LLP represents businesses and entrepreneurs in all trademark and brand protection matters.