As a result of Unilever selling the ice cream manufacturer's Israeli business to a local licensee, US District Judge Andrew Carter questions whether Ben & Jerry's had demonstrated that it feared "imminent danger."
NEW YORK, USA - On August 8, a US judge expressed skepticism about whether Ben & Jerry's parent Unilever warranted an emergency injunction to stop marketing its ice cream in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, which is against the company's values.
Following Unilever's June 29 sale of the ice cream maker's Israeli company to local licensee Avi Zinger, US District Judge Andrew Carter expressed doubt that Ben & Jerry's had demonstrated that it risked "imminent harm" at a court hearing in Manhattan.
The unique dispute demonstrates the difficulties Unilever confronts in encouraging its 400+ brands to have social goals that, according to the business, boost sales.
On July 5, nearly a year after the producer of Half Baked and Cherry Garcia received criticism for ending sales in Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories because it was "inconsistent" with its values, Ben & Jerry's independent board sued Unilever.
The focus of Monday's hearing was on whether Ben & Jerry's was entitled to an interim injunction prohibiting Zinger from selling new or renamed goods using its English language trademarks, even if the case also sought to completely block the sale.
Shahmeer Halepota, an attorney for Ben & Jerry, claimed in court that Zinger might create new goods with the "exact opposite viewpoint," confusing customers.
Halepota suggested that instead of Peace Pops, you might create "Tank Pops," and customers would see both of them strolling down an aisle of a grocery store.
Although the judge did not make a decision right away, she said to a lawyer for Ben & Jerry's: "I don't hear anything stating that there is something impending. Nothing seems to be going to happen during the next few weeks.
When he would govern was not stated by him.
When Unilever acquired Ben & Jerry's in 2000, it allowed the board of the company to continue having main oversight over the ice cream maker's social objective. The sale to Zinger, according to Ben & Jerry's board, weakened its ability to achieve that. The two new Unilever hires disagreed.
Halepota stated, "This is an American institution that has built its credibility on this genuineness of social goal for the previous 40 years.
Contrarily, Unilever has asserted that it still has the authority to decide how Ben & Jerry's is run and that the sale is final and cannot be reversed.
There is simply no basis for concern that the continuous selling of ice cream could result in permanent damage, according to Unilever's attorney David Marriott.
For the first time ever, Ben & Jerry's sales in 2017 surpassed 1 billion euros ($1.02 billion).
Ben & Jerry's hasn't sued Unilever previously, although the company did explore it after discovering quality problems with the ice cream that were ultimately fixed, according to Jeff Furman, who assisted in the establishment of the company and sat on the board for almost 40 years.
We have our fingers in everything, he added, adding that being on guard and concerned about everything was part of his job.
Ben & Jerry's claimed last week that Unilever had suspended the independent directors' salary.
Two weeks of mediation to negotiate an out-of-court settlement failed prior to the hearing on Monday.
You must be logged in to post a comment.