Cadbury owner challenges vegan chocolate brand over SNOWBALLS trademark

Mondelēz International has accused Moo Free of trademark infringement over its White Choccy Snowballs, raising questions about brand protection, generic product names, and the risks facing smaller confectionery businesses.

Cadbury owner Mondelēz International has challenged vegan chocolate manufacturer Moo Free over its use of the name “White Choccy Snowballs,” alleging infringement of Cadbury’s trademarks for SNOWBALL and SNOWBALLS.

The dispute centers on Moo Free’s dairy-free confectionery product, which is made from gluten-free, biscuit-flavored rice balls coated in vegan white chocolate. Mondelēz has reportedly sent the Devon-based company a legal letter demanding that the products be removed from sale.

Cadbury’s Mini Snow Balls, by contrast, are made from Dairy Milk chocolate covered in a crisp white icing-sugar shell. The brand’s Snow Balls products date back to 1966.

Mondelēz has confirmed that it has not initiated legal proceedings against Moo Free, but said it contacted the company to make it aware of its trademark rights. The company has also indicated that it remains open to an amicable resolution.

Moo Free has said it does not accept that infringement has been established and has responded to Mondelēz’s correspondence.

Trademark rights and the question of generic use

The dispute raises questions about the scope and enforceability of trademark rights in terms that may also be used descriptively for confectionery products.

Laurie Bray, senior associate trademark attorney at European intellectual property firm Withers & Rogers, said Moo Free appeared to be taking the position that “snowball” is a generic term in the confectionery sector.

“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 trademark by Cadbury since 2001. Unless Moo Free are able to cancel Cadbury’s registration, Cadbury appear to be in a strong position,” Bray said.

The existence of a registration does not, in itself, determine whether infringement has occurred. The scope of the registered rights, the use made by Moo Free, and any available defenses would need to be considered if the dispute proceeds.

Bray also highlighted that Moo Free had reportedly been selling its product for around two years before the dispute came to light, while claiming that it had not previously heard of Cadbury’s product.

“It’s interesting that Moo Free have been selling their product for around two years before this trademark dispute came to light, and that they claim never to have heard of the Cadbury product,” she said.

The differences between the products could also provide a basis for resolving the dispute commercially.

“Mondelēz has said that it is open to amicable settlement. Given that the Moo Free product is marketed as a vegan product, and Cadbury Snow Balls are not, the distinction between the two products may be the starting point for a commercial agreement between the companies,” Bray said.

Brand protection versus commercial realities

Daniel Kelly, legal director in the IP team at law firm Shakespeare Martineau, said the dispute demonstrated how seemingly familiar or descriptive-sounding product names could create significant intellectual property risks.

“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,” Kelly said.

He added that Cadbury’s trademark registration meant the brand had a commercial interest in protecting its portfolio.

“Although this is another example of a smaller business receiving an enforcement letter from a much larger confectionery business, Cadbury’s public response does appear less aggressive than the demands in its reported correspondence,” Kelly said.

He noted that Mondelēz’s confirmation that proceedings had not been issued, alongside its willingness to pursue an amicable resolution, could help manage potential reputational fallout.

Kelly also emphasized the importance of trademark clearance searches before businesses launch new products.

“This allows potentially conflicting third-party rights to be identified before significant investment is made in packaging, production, marketing and retailer listings,” he said.

“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.”

Changing consumer habits and trademark enforcement

The dispute also reflects changes in consumer behavior and the growing presence of specialist food products in mainstream retail and online marketplaces.

Patricia Collis, brand protection partner at Keystone Law, said the increasing popularity of vegan and “free from” products could help explain why Mondelēz had chosen to act now.

“Consumer tastes and purchasing habits are changing. Mondelēz may have chosen now to take action as we’re in an era where more specialist ranges, including both ‘free from’ and vegan products, are becoming more commonplace,” Collis said.

She added that online shopping had increased the likelihood of consumers encountering products outside their usual purchasing categories.

“The ongoing growth of online shopping also means such products are no longer only encountered in their own special areas of physical stores. They are much more likely to be found by those not specifically seeking them out than would have been the case even five years ago,” she said.

Collis acknowledged why Moo Free might regard “snowball” as a generic term, given its various uses in the UK, but emphasized the importance of checking existing rights.

“Given the various ways in which the term ‘snowball’ is used in the UK, it’s not entirely surprising that Moo Free see it as a ‘generic’ term, free for anyone to use. That said, Cadbury do own a trademark registration for the word, serving as a reminder of the importance to carry out clearance checks even for terms you think are free to use,” Collis said. She added that brand owners must also take steps to protect the distinctiveness of their registered marks.

“Like all brand owners, in order to ensure the ongoing validity of their registration, Cadbury needs to take steps to ensure the mark does not become generic, which presumably is the motivation here,” she said.

A wider enforcement strategy

The Moo Free dispute follows separate legal proceedings brought by Mondelēz against another vegan confectionery business, Catherine’s Originals, over its O’bar product.

Mondelēz alleges that the product’s shape infringes rights associated with Toblerone’s distinctive product configuration. Catherine’s Originals has disputed the allegations. Together, the disputes highlight the challenges facing smaller food businesses when launching products in markets dominated by established brands with extensive intellectual property portfolios.

For Moo Free and Mondelēz, the immediate question remains whether the parties can reach an agreement before the key Christmas trading period.

No court proceedings have been filed in the Snowballs dispute. Any eventual resolution may depend on whether the companies can reconcile their respective commercial interests with the trademark rights at issue.

← Back to News