The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that a Louisiana statute that prohibits the use of the word "Cajun" in connection with the sale of food is unconstitutional as applied to an importer of catfish from China. Piazza’s Seafood World, LLC v. Odom, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 11188 (5th Cir. May 4, 2006) (McCurn, J.).
Piazza’s Seafood used the names "Cajun Boy" and "Cajun Delight" in connection with sales of catfish imported from China. The distributor then sold the product to wholesalers who added the country of origin (China) to the product label before re-selling it. The Commissioner of Louisiana Agriculture issued a letter to Piazza’s customers demanding that they cease re-selling the catfish under the names "Cajun Boy" and "Cajun Delight" because it violated the Louisiana Cajun Statute. The Louisiana Cajun Statute prohibits use of the word "Cajun" in connection with sale of food made outside of Louisiana. In response, Piazza’s Seafood sued the Commissioner and alleged that the Cajun Statute, as applied, violated the First Amendment. The district court awarded summary judgment to the plaintiff, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed.
In affirming, the Fifth Circuit reasoned that although Louisiana had an interest in protecting its citizens from deceptive uses of trade names, there was no evidence that the use of the names in question ("Cajun Boy" and "Cajun Delight")was actually deceptive. "[T]he state’s interest in protecting Louisianans from deception [is] is not enhanced by application of the [Cajun] statute to [Plaintiff] because there [is] no deception present to be prevented." The court found that disclosure of the country of origin on a product’s label eliminated any deception associated with the use of those terms.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
