Cheese Hog Manufacturing v. ReddyMade — Trademark-Abandonment Dispute Heads to Trial

Background

For decades, Palazzolo Manufacturing sold commercial cheese shredders under the “Palazzolo’s Cheese Hog” name and registered a hog-head design mark. The founder later reduced operations, stopped making new machines, dissolved the company, and eventually transferred the mark and business assets to Cheese Hog Manufacturing.

During the gap, ReddyMade began repairing the installed base and selling a reverse-engineered shredder called “The Cheese Hog.” It believed the former owner had abandoned the brand. Cheese Hog Manufacturing sued under the Lanham Act and Ohio law, while ReddyMade sought cancellation and asserted abandonment and fraud defenses. Both sides moved for summary judgment.

The Court’s Holding

The court ruled that a jury must decide whether the prior owner abandoned the mark. The period of discontinued sales supported ReddyMade’s position, but evidence that the owner retained business materials, sought buyers, and intended to resume or transfer the business could support continued trademark rights. That disputed history also affected whether a valid mark was assigned to the plaintiff.

The court likewise declined to decide infringement as a matter of law. Similar wording, products, and sales channels favored Cheese Hog Manufacturing, but the evidence concerning mark strength, actual confusion, customer sophistication, and the competing explanations for ReddyMade’s conduct did not point only one way.

Cheese Hog Manufacturing did win summary judgment on ReddyMade’s fraud-based defenses and counterclaims because the record did not establish the required fraudulent representations to the Patent and Trademark Office. Most ownership, infringement, unfair-competition, and state-law issues remain for trial.

Key Takeaways

• Stopping sales creates abandonment risk, but contemporaneous evidence of plans to resume or transfer the business may preserve rights.
• An assignment cannot convey a trademark that was already abandoned, making continuity evidence critical during retirement or shutdown.
• Copying a legacy product name can support confusion, yet summary judgment may remain inappropriate when ownership and market evidence are disputed.

Why It Matters

Small and family-run manufacturers often pause operations without formal brand-transition planning. This ruling highlights the value of documenting intent, retaining goodwill-related assets, maintaining customer communications, and completing assignments promptly. Those records may determine whether a dormant mark survives a business transition.