Just two days after Chipotle filed a lawsuit against Sweetgreen for copyright infringement over its new Chipotle Chicken Burrito Bowl, the pair of fast-casual restaurant brands say they have reached an agreement to resolve the complaint. Sweetgreen says it has agreed to rename the menu item in question to the "Chicken + Chipotle Pepper Bowl."
On April 4, Chipotle filed a complaint against Sweetgreen, alleging that a newly introduced menu item constituted trademark infringement, trademark dilution, false designation of origin and deceptive trade practice, according to a legal filing. But by April 6, the two parties had resolved the lawsuit, according to representatives for both Chipotle and Sweetgreen.
The drama started on March 30, when Sweetgreen announced the launch of its Chipotle Chicken Burrito Bowl currently available for a limited time across all of its locations. The bowl, named for its “thoughtfully-sourced chipotle powder,” according to the company, includes blackened chicken with a roasted chipotle salsa made with roasted tomatoes, jalapenos, red onion and garlic. Served on a base of wild rice, the menu item is finished with lime-cilantro black beans, sliced tomatoes and cabbage.
In the legal filing, Chipotle claimed that Sweetgreen was advertising its new menu item using the word "'CHIPOTLE' in a font nearly identical to Chipotle’s' and "in light lettering against a background that is nearly identical to Chipotle’s trademarked red color, Adobo Red."
The filing claimed that Chipotle had sent a letter to Sweetgreen, suggesting that "'chicken bowl with chipotle' may be a more appropriate name for Sweetgreen’s new menu item." Chipotle claimed that Sweetgreen failed to respond to this letter, which is why it filed the complaint.
“This is an action under the Lanham Act and related state laws, arising out of Sweetgreen’s marketing and sales of a ‘Chipotle Chicken Burrito Bowl,’” reads the introduction to the suit. “Still, Sweetgreen is using Chipotle’s famous CHIPOTLE® trademark to sell a product that is very similar and directly competitive to Chipotle’s chicken burrito bowl.”
Chipotle also claimed that since customers associate the word “Chipotle” with its brand, the use of the name in the new menu item “is likely to cause confusion or mistake as to the source” of Sweetgreen’s Chipotle Chicken Burrito Bowl.
The suit also claimed that Sweetgreen’s actions on social media “confirms its intent” that a false association with Chipotle was being employed, sharing a screenshot of one of Sweetgreen’s Instagram comments at the time of launch.
“In response to a comment stating ‘Chipotle who?!’ Sweetgreen replied ‘you said it, not us’ and included an emoji meant to indicate ‘zipped lips,’” reads the lawsuit.
“Sweetgreen’s demonstrated intent to draw an association between its product and Chipotle’s product and brand, can only be explained by a willingness to infringe Chipotle’s intellectual property, confuse and/or deceive consumers, and wrongfully profit from and trade off of Chipotle’s valuable goodwill and reputation,” continues the complaint.
At the time, Sweetgreen said it was aware of Chipotle’s lawsuit but wouldn't comment on pending litigation.
On April 6, both brands confirmed to TODAY.com that lawsuit is in the process of being resolved.
“In order to focus on the business and continue serving our guests without distraction, we have decided to rename our bowl to the Chicken + Chipotle Pepper Bowl as part of a tentative agreement to resolve the lawsuit,” a Sweetgreen spokesperson tells TODAY.com via email. “Our mission is to bring customers healthy, elevated and craveable menu items that make you feel good. We are looking forward to putting this lawsuit behind us as we continue to connect more people to real food.”
“We are pleased that Sweetgreen has chosen to amend their materials in a manner that protects our trademarks and intellectual property, and therefore, we have both agreed to resolve the pending lawsuit,” Laurie Schalow, Chipotle’s chief corporate affairs officer, tells TODAY.com via email. “We will continue our vigilance in protecting our intellectual property in the marketplace.”
