Mondelēz International, the owner of Cadbury and Toblerone, has demanded that small vegan chocolate brand Moo Free remove its White Choccy Snowballs from sale, alleging trademark infringement over the use of the word 'snowball'.
The dispute, which emerged just before the busy Christmas season, involves products Moo Free says it has been selling for about two years. Mondelēz claims the brand is infringing its trademark for 'Snowball' and 'Snowballs' in chocolate confectionery, a mark it registered in 2001.
Cadbury Snowballs were first launched in the UK in 1966 and have been sold in their current form as packs of Mini Snow Balls since 2023. The move follows a separate legal action Mondelēz took against another small vegan brand, Catherine’s Originals, which it accuses of copying the shape of Toblerone.
Mike Jessop, co-founder of Devon-based Moo Free, which he and his wife founded in 2010 when they could not find allergen-free chocolates for Easter or Christmas, said he had “never even heard of” Cadbury Snow Balls. Being lactose intolerant, he said he could not try one. He said he was surprised by Mondelēz’s “heavy-handed” letter and questioned whether a generic term like snowball could be trademarked. “It’s a snowball, it is not like we are making a Freddo,” he said, referring to the Cadbury frog-shaped bar.
In a letter to customers, Moo Free said it took intellectual property concerns seriously but did not accept any infringement had been established. “We are disappointed to find ourselves in this position, and we stand in solidarity with Catherine’s Originals as it addresses its own situation,” the letter read. Mondelēz International said no legal action had been taken and it was open to an amicable resolution. “Cadbury Snow Balls are one of our most popular Christmas products, enjoyed by households across the UK,” a spokesperson said. “We have been in touch with Moo Free to make them aware of our trademark.”
The row is not the UK’s first snowball fight. In 2014, Tunnock’s and Lees of Scotland won a legal battle against HMRC, successfully arguing that their coconut-covered marshmallow snowballs were sufficiently similar to cakes to be exempt from VAT.
Analysis
Why This Matters
- Highlights the ongoing tension between global confectionery giants and small allergen-friendly businesses.
- Raises questions about the extent to which common descriptive words like 'snowball' can be trademarked in a specific product context.
- The timing of the dispute just before Christmas could heavily impact a small business’s peak sales period.
Background
Mondelēz International owns the Cadbury and Toblerone brands. Cadbury Snowballs have been a Christmas staple in the UK since 1966, with the company registering the trademark for the term in 2001. Moo Free is a small Devon-based company founded in 2010 to provide chocolates free from common allergens like dairy and gluten. The legal letter to Moo Free comes at the same time as a separate trademark action against another small vegan brand, Catherine’s Originals, over the shape of Toblerone.
Key Perspectives
Mondelēz International: Says Cadbury Snow Balls are a popular Christmas product and it is open to an amicable resolution, having simply made Moo Free aware of its trademark.
Moo Free: Questions whether the term 'snowball' can be trademarked, describing the response from Mondelēz as heavy-handed. It does not accept that any infringement has occurred and has responded to the legal letter accordingly.
What to Watch
- Whether the dispute escalates to formal legal action or is settled before the Christmas sales period.
- The outcome of the related trademark case against Catherine’s Originals over the Toblerone shape.
- Potential public reaction as consumers and industry voices weigh in on the balance between brand protection and support for small businesses.
Checked
12 claims in this story checked against 1 source: 12 supported.
Show each claim
- SupportedMondelēz demanded that Moo Free stop selling its Snowball chocolates.Business | The Guardian: “The owner of Cadbury and Toblerone has demanded that a small vegan chocolate brand remove its products from shelves”
- SupportedMondelēz accused Moo Free of trademark infringement over its White Choccy Snowballs and the word “snowball”.Business | The Guardian: “Mondelēz International has written a legal letter to Moo Free accusing it of trademark infringement by selling its White Choccy Snowballs”
- SupportedMondelēz registered “Snowball” and “Snowballs” as trademarks for chocolate confectionery in 2001.Business | The Guardian: “The brand registered use of the word Snowball and Snowballs for use in chocolate confectionery as a trademark in 2001.”
- SupportedCadbury Snowballs first launched in the UK in 1966 and have been sold in their current form as packs of Mini Snow Balls since 2023.Business | The Guardian: “Cadbury Snowballs first launched in the UK in 1966, and have been sold in their current form as packs of Mini Snow Balls since 2023.”
- SupportedMoo Free had been selling its Snowballs for about two years before Mondelēz demanded they be removed just ahead of Christmas.Business | The Guardian: “Moo Free ... said it had been selling its Snowballs for about two years before Mondelēz demanded it immediately remove the items from sale just ahead of the busy Christmas period.”
- SupportedThe Moo Free dispute emerged days after Mondelēz launched legal action against Catherine’s Originals over its O’bar’s shape, which Mondelēz accused it of copying from Toblerone.Business | The Guardian: “The legal fight has emerged just days after Mondelēz launched legal action against another small vegan chocolate brand, Catherine’s Originals, accusing it of copying the famous chunky shape of Toblerone with its O’bar.”
- SupportedJessop said he had “never even heard of” Cadbury Snow Balls and was lactose intolerant, so he could not try one.Business | The Guardian: “He said he had “never even heard of” Cadbury Snow Balls and was lactose intolerant so couldn’t try one.”
- SupportedJessop called Mondelēz’s letter “heavy-handed” and questioned whether an apparently generic term could be trademarked.Business | The Guardian: “He was surprised Mondelēz had been so “heavy-handed” in its letter and questioned whether it could be possible to trademark an apparently generic term.”
- SupportedJessop said, “It’s a snowball, it is not like we are making a Freddo,” referring to Cadbury’s frog-shaped bar.Business | The Guardian: ““It’s a snowball, it is not like we are making a Freddo,” he said, referring to Cadbury’s famous frog-shaped bar.”
- SupportedMoo Free’s letter to customers said it was disappointed and stood in solidarity with Catherine’s Originals as it addressed its own situation.Business | The Guardian: “We are disappointed to find ourselves in this position, and we stand in solidarity with Catherine’s Originals as it addresses its own situation.”
- SupportedMondelēz said Cadbury Snow Balls were among its most popular Christmas products, that no legal action had been taken, and that it was open to an amicable resolution.Business | The Guardian: “Cadbury Snow Balls are one of our most popular Christmas products, enjoyed by households across the UK. No legal action has been taken, but we have been in touch with Moo Free to make them aware of our trademark. We are open to reaching an amicable resolution.”
- SupportedIn 2014, Tunnock’s and Lees of Scotland won a legal battle against HMRC over VAT on their coconut-covered marshmallow snowballs.Business | The Guardian: “Tunnock’s and Lees of Scotland won legal action against HMRC in 2014 after proving they did not have to pay VAT on their coconut-covered confections, as they were deemed sufficiently similar to a cake for an exemption.”