Mondelēz and Moo Free Snowballs trade mark dispute: Key facts
- Mondelēz is challenging Moo Free over alleged Snowballs trade mark infringement
- Cadbury registered Snowball and Snowballs trade marks for confectionery in 2001
- No legal proceedings filed and discussions currently remain open
- Dispute follows Mondelēz action against Catherine’s Originals over Toblerone
- Case highlights trade mark risks and importance of clearance searches
Mondelēz International is demanding that vegan chocolate maker Moo Free remove its White Choccy Snowballs from shelves over allegations of trade mark infringement.
Kraft Foods Schweiz Holding GmbH, a subsidiary of Mondelēz, has written a legal letter to the British brand over the use of the word ‘snowballs’, stating its flagship brand Cadbury had registered the use of ‘snowball’ and ‘snowballs’ in chocolate confectionery in 2001.
“Cadbury Snow Balls are one of our most popular Christmas products, enjoyed by households across the UK,” said a spokesperson for Mondelēz. “No legal action has been taken, but we have been in touch with Moo Free to make them aware of our trade mark. We are open to reaching an amicable resolution.”
Cadbury Snow Balls first launched in the UK in 1966, and have been sold in their current form – Dairy Milk chocolate covered in a white icing sugar shell – as packs of Mini Snow Balls since 2023.
The dispute emerged just days after Mondelēz took legal action against another vegan chocolate brand, Catherine’s Original’s, accusing it of copying Toblerone’s iconic shape in its O’bar.
Why trade mark protection matters
For major confectionery companies, protecting trade marks is about far more than defending a single product. Brand names, product shapes and other distinctive assets can take decades to build, often becoming some of a company’s most valuable intellectual property.
According to Daniel Kelly, legal director in the IP team at law firm Shakespeare Martineau, the Moo Free dispute highlights why rights holders are often compelled to act when they believe their trade marks are being used without permission.
“A festive product name can quickly turn into a commercial headache, and this dispute highlights exactly how even seemingly familiar or descriptive-sounding names can carry significant intellectual property risks.”
The case, he says, serves as a timely reminder for businesses to conduct clearance searches before launching a new brand or product name. This allows potentially conflicting third party rights to be identified before significant investment is made in packaging, production, marketing and retailer listings.
“A playful festive name may seem harmless, but that doesn’t mean it is free to use, especially in crowded markets such as food and confectionery.”
The case also demonstrates why large manufacturers such as Mondelēz and other global confectionery players actively police their intellectual property portfolios.
Failing to challenge potential infringements can weaken the distinctiveness of a trade mark over time, making enforcement more difficult in future disputes.
Moo Free’s response
In response to the allegations, Moo Free co-founder Mike Jessop said he had “never even heard of” Cadbury Snow Balls.
He also questioned the trade marking of a word like ‘snowball’.
However, on this point, senior associate trade mark attorney at European intellectual property firm, Withers & Rogers, Laurie Bray disagreed:
“Moo Free seem to be taking the position that ‘snowball’ is a generic term when it comes to confectionery, however the name has been registered as a trade mark by Cadbury since 2001. Unless Moo Free are able to cancel Cadbury’s registration, Cadbury appear to be in a strong position.”
Why the challenge has emerged now remains unclear. Moo Free says it has been selling White Choccy Snowballs for around two years before receiving Mondelēz’s legal letter, raising questions about whether the product’s growing visibility or retail distribution may have prompted the action.
“It’s interesting that Moo Free have been selling their product for around two years before this trade mark dispute came to light, and that they claim never to have heard of the Cadbury product,” says Bray.
Though she offered some hope to the British brand, saying the fact Moo Free is marketed as a vegan product and Cadbury Snow Balls are not, could be a potential “starting point for a commercial agreement” between the two companies.
In a letter to customers, Moo Free wrote:
“Moo Free takes intellectual property concerns seriously. However, we do not accept that any infringement has been established and have responded accordingly.”
Should the dispute escalate, the implications for Moo Free could be significant. Trade mark disputes can result in costly rebranding exercises, packaging changes and the removal of products from retailer shelves, creating disruption for smaller manufacturers with fewer resources to absorb such costs.
We’ll continue to closely follow developments.
