Colin vs Cuthbert: M&S sues Aldi over rival caterpillar cake

first_imgSource: M&SColin the CaterpillarM&S is taking legal action over similarities between its Colin the Caterpillar cake and Aldi’s rival product Cuthbert the Caterpillar.Both cakes are chocolate sponge rolls with solid chocolate covering, white chocolate faces and sweet decoration. M&S believes its competitor’s product represents a trademark infringement and has filed a claim with the High Court.The Colin the Caterpillar cake, first introduced in 1990, has spawned multiple spin-off products for M&S (see below), including a female version called Connie the Caterpillar, launched in 2016.“At M&S we are passionate about creating the highest quality, most innovative food for our customers – whether that is 100% British sourced meat or iconic products like Colin the Caterpillar, Percy Pig and our Glitter Gin Globe,” an M&S spokesperson said.“Because we know the M&S brand is special to our customers and they expect only the very best from us, love and care goes into every M&S product on our shelves. So we want to protect Colin, Connie and our reputation for freshness, quality, innovation and value.”Aldi was contacted by British Baker for comment on the legal action but said it had ‘nothing to add’. Source: M&SColin the Caterpillar cake jarsAccording to M&S, Colin has attended over 10 million birthdays since 1990. Earlier this year, Tate commented on similar products sold by rival retailers and told British Baker: “Imitation is the most sincere kind of flattery.” Source: M&SThe original Colin the Caterpillar cake from 1990Colin – the making of an iconThe original Colin the Caterpillar cake, which celebrated its 30th birthday last year, was developed through a collaboration between M&S and Park Cakes.According to Natalie Tate, M&S baker product developer, the brief was to create ‘something different’ for children’s birthday parties that could be easily portioned and have wide appeal.The recipe has remained largely the same although the look of the product has evolved over the last three decades. For example, the original fondant face has been replaced with the white chocolate version and six matching boots have been added.In addition to Connie, the female version, special editions of the cake have been produced for occasions such as Christmas, Easter and Halloween.Spin off products include the recently launch Colin the Caterpillar cupcakes, cake jars and button biscuits, as well as a Mother’s Day version of Connie.last_img read more

You Are Being Poisoned

first_imgMoving Forward  “I hate to be the pessimist, but I don’t think anything will ever quantify what needs to be done,” Bailey said. “There’s no story that can be told, there’s nothing, no matter how big this is, no matter the hundreds of millions of dollars, there is still nothing compared to the profit that they have made and are still making. I think that the only thing that’s going to have an effect is shutting down this product and shutting down this company.” So far, the EPA has not set a national standard for the presence of PFAS chemicals in drinking water.  The story of C8 and the DuPont plant in Parkersburg, W. Va. is a complicated one. It’s a story of lies and deceit, livelihoods and lives lost. It’s the story of a chemical that has remained in the environment for decades and the people dealing with its very real effects today.  Although DuPont and other companies voluntarily discontinued their use of PFOA, replacements such as GenX have already been found in places like the Cape Fear River in North Carolina.  In 1951, DuPont started using C8, a perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), at their plant in Parkersburg for the production of Teflon. This water, grease, and stain repellent coating has been used in a variety of products, including cookware, apparel, and upholstery.  “All of them have very little health and safety data,” Andrews said. “The information we do have for some of those replacements is incredibly concerning. GenX is one of these replacement chemicals. Nearly a dozen studies indicated very similar health impacts as PFOA. I think some of those assumptions the EPA made over the last decade when allowing all these new chemicals on the market are really coming into question now in terms of the adequacy of that review. Our concern is that the bar was way too low.” “I love living up here in Northern Virginia, just far enough out of the city where I can walk outside of my house and not hear anything,” he said. Soon after Sue Bailey returned to work at the plant, DuPont transferred all female employees out of areas where they might come in contact with C8.  In 2018, The Devil We Know premiered at the Sundance Film Festival. Although Bailey had seen pieces of the rough draft, it wasn’t until opening night that he saw the film in its entirety.  Since then, the film has premiered all over the world and is now available for streaming on Netflix and Amazon.  C8 is just one chemical under the family of chemicals known as per- or polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). There are an estimated 4,800 chemicals in this family, although the Environmental Protection agency says that only 600 of those have been commercially active in the last ten years.  “I was having conversations with my mother that were real,” Bailey said. “Nothing was ever staged. Some of the camera shots were staged but that was about it. That was real conversation, real concerns that I had with my son being born, about my father not being here. Just being able to talk to my dad to know what he felt during this point. Or thinking about what my mom had to go through. It was raw.”  “The action plan seemed to be almost exactly the same as what the EPA said they were doing over a decade ago,” Andrews said. “Most of it was a plan to further study these chemicals, look into setting a drinking water limit. They laid out a lot of different options but really took no specific action on these chemicals. That’s the part that’s sorely needed here. Ultimately, we think that the companies and manufacturers that made and released these chemicals into the environment should be responsible for paying for the cleanup and clean drinking water.” One of those people, William “Bucky” Bailey, moved away from the Parkersburg community at a young age. He now lives on the border of Virginia and West Virginia, where the two state governments argue over who is responsible for maintaining the road.  The Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit dedicated to researching and educating the public on environmental issues, published many of those documents online for the public to see. Some of the footage he had never seen before that night, including testimonies from several DuPont employees.  “My mom knew what was up,” Bailey said. “She knew what the links were. My grandpa had made notes of my blood level. She knew she had evidence. We went back to talk to some lawyers and pretty much had doors shut in our face. So, we kind of just let it go. At the point, I am seven, eight, nine years old and I’ve got half a nose. I’d probably already had 15 to 20 surgeries on my face.” As his children grow up, Bailey hopes to pass on the same resiliency that his parents taught him. Bailey is one of the lead figures in the documentary The Devil We Know, which tells the story of the contamination of the Parkersburg community and the subsequent DuPont cover up.   Studies done by the Centers for Disease Control under the Department of Health and Human Services found these “forever chemicals” in the blood of nearly every American.  While Bailey participated in the medical study, the panel determined there was not enough of a significant sample size to link his deformities with the chemical.  But each time a new article was released, or documentary premiered, nothing seemed to happen at the institutional level. “One of the reasons that we know a lot about the health effects of these chemicals are because of that original trial in Parkersburg, West Virginia,” said David Andrews, a senior scientist with the Environmental Working Group. “One of the unique agreements that came out of that trial was that DuPont paid for a scientific study, as well as monitoring of the surrounding community. Just over 70,000 people were studied. They measured the blood levels of PFOA and then they looked at health outcomes. These studies led to probable link reports where the higher concentrations were linked to a number of specific health outcomes.” From 2005 to 2013, the C8 Science Panel studied people in six water districts in the Mid-Ohio Valley for links between exposure to the PFOA chemical and a number of diseases. The panel determined that high cholesterol, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, testicular cancer, kidney cancer, and pregnancy-induced hypertension could all be linked to exposure to C8. At several points after the class-action suit, he thought the story of Dupont and C8 would break big time on the national scene. He sat down for countless interviews with 20/20, The Intercept, The Huffington Post, and BBC News, as well as several mini documentaries.  “Carbon-fluorine bonds are incredibly sturdy, and they don’t break down under any normal environmental process,” Andrews said. “Once these chemicals are released into the environment, they are essentially there forever. When released into the ground, released into the water, it will be there for years, centuries, millennia. They will spread out over time, but because of how potent they are at incredibly low concentrations, that may actually make the problem much worse.” Without a concrete plan moving forward at the institutional level, individuals like Bailey are continuing to speak up about the harmful effects of these chemicals in our water. “Since the deformities were not found as part of the conclusion of that study, I waived my right to pursue any type of litigation against DuPont,” he said. “I’ve never expected to get a dime from DuPont. I don’t expect to get a dime from DuPont. That’s not what drives me. People have lost so much. I’m sitting here today. I’m healthy. I’ve got a healthy wife, a healthy kid. That’s more to me than anything.” Hitting the National News Unlike some of the smaller documentaries Bailey participated in, production for The Devil We Know lasted around three years. In that time, the Baileys welcomed a son.  “This was worth it, every long night of filming,” he said. “I look back over my life and it was even worth it going through the struggles that I did just to be able to share my story. I’m a Christian believer and this kind of affirmed my faith that we all go through things for a reason. We all have to be a testimony. We all have to understand that we don’t always have it the worst off. There’s always someone else. But we still need to speak up, be the light, and do what we can.” In February, the EPA released an action plan on fluorinated chemicals. “With where we’re at today with the EPA, I don’t have any hope,” Bailey said. “There is nothing being done. There are no federal standards against the chemicals unless it’s poison gas. If it can be consumed and not kill you, we’re going to allow it. It’s not going to change until we hold people to a higher standard. Unfortunately, the issue with that is one person doesn’t think that they can do it by themselves and it doesn’t matter. That’s where our mentality has to change. My single action, my individual actions will make a difference.” Sue Bailey worked at the Parkersburg plant with the C8 waste while she was pregnant with her third child. When Bucky Bailey was born in January 1981, he had similar birth defects to his nose and eye that were found in the rats. There are known carcinogens (C8) in your frying pan, dental floss, and favorite outdoor jacket. Documentary lead Bucky Bailey fights for his family’s health—and yours. In 2001, attorney Rob Bilott brought a class-action suit against DuPont on behalf of residents in the area. During the discovery phase of the trial, thousands of documents came out about what DuPont and 3M knew about the chemical.  However, Bailey continues to speak out about the issue. A few years later, the Bailey family moved away from the Parkersburg area. But Sue Bailey kept thinking about the link between working at the DuPont plant and her son. “There were times that I thought I was at my breaking point, but God had other plans,” he said. “There were times when I thought that my life wasn’t worth living, to be honest. I had so many battles, but my parents pushed and pulled me. They gave me the support that I need. I hope that’s what I’ve done for them. For them to be able to have a voice no matter what and to speak up for others.” Bailey was newly married when he learned about the investigation and suit. He remembered his mother talking about the link between C8 and his deformities, something he hadn’t focused on in his childhood.  “From ages 10 to 22, my concern was getting past these surgeries,” he said. “I had surgeries that were in excess of eight hours where 120 stitches were put in my face at one time. Rib cartilage was taken out. Balloons in my forehead to stretch my skin. So, at that point, I wasn’t really worried about DuPont. I was worried about questions like: Am I going to be able to go to school in the fall? Am I going to be able to be normal? Am I going to be able to have a girlfriend?” For more than 50 years, the company released the byproduct of Teflon into the air and water surrounding the plant, knowing the health impacts the chemical could have on the environment and people living in the area. A study done by 3M, the original manufacturers of C8, found the chemical caused a variety of health problems in rats, including some birth defects. For most of his childhood, Bailey didn’t think much about confronting DuPont. “The revenge doesn’t drive me,” Bailey said. “I don’t want to sound like I don’t want justice for people, because I do. There has to be some justice for these people. I’m fine with not taking another step towards DuPont for myself. I’m not okay with hearing about chemical dumping in my country. I’m not okay with hearing this chemical is in the water in the Cape Fear River. That’s not okay to me and that drives me more each day to spread the word. I’ve got a beautiful son and a daughter on the way. They’re going to have to live in this world and drink water and take showers. That’s what drives me to never give up. To not let it fall by the wayside as it tends to do so easily.”last_img read more

Fee statements hit the mail

first_imgFee statements hit the mail June 15, 2001 clicking here Managing Editor Regular News Fee statements hit the mailBy Mark D. Killian Managing Editor Florida Bar members soon will receive their 2001-02 annual fee statements reflecting an increase in fees and only minor modifications to the form. Bar finance director Allen Martin said the statements have changed little from last year, are payable July 1 and are late after August 15. Members will receive one of two fee statements: one designed for active members and another for those who have elected inactive status. Annual fees are now $265. Inactive members pay $175. This year members also will have the option to complete their annual fee statement and pay their fees online via the Bar’s website at Members also have an option to make a voluntary contribution to The Florida Bar Foundation’s Lawyers Challenge for Children campaign and the Supreme Court Historical Society. “Members should be aware that the fee statements are two-sided and must be completed both front and back and be mailed along with their payment to cover their fees and sections joined,” Martin said. Under the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, fees postmarked after August 15 will be assessed a $50 late fee (up from $25 a year ago). Members who do not pay by September 30 will be deemed delinquent. The delinquency may be cleared by petitioning the Bar, paying the fees, the late fee, and a $150 reinstatement fee. Under the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, members delinquent for five years will lose their Bar membership on October 1. To be reinstated, those members must meet all the requirements of the Florida Board of Bar Examiners. Pro Bono Reports This year’s fee form again includes a pro bono section for Bar members to report if they have met the Supreme Court’s aspirational pro bono goals. The court asks lawyers to provide 20 hours of pro bono service or donate $350 to a legal aid program each year. A series of questions promulgated by the court appears on the fee statement, depending on what option the attorney selected. The court wants to know: • How many hours of pro bono service the lawyer donated and if the work was done through an organized legal aid program or on the lawyer’s own. • If the lawyer’s firm provided pro bono collectively under a plan operated by a circuit pro bono committee. • If the lawyer has contributed to a legal aid organization in lieu of performing pro bono work. • Whether the attorney was unable to provide pro bono service or met the provision for being deferred. • How the lawyer fulfilled his or her service if done in some manner not specifically envisioned by the plan. The details of the pro bono plan, including the reporting provisions, can be found under Rule 4-6.5 beginning on page 713 of the September 2000 Bar Journal directory or by clicking here. Community Service This year’s fee statement again features a purely voluntary section that allows members to report the community and public service they have performed over the past year. The purpose is to obtain data to show contributions lawyers make by way of community service. Lawyers may voluntarily report whether they have provided service to the legal community, religious organizations, civic organizations, or other charities and how many hours they donated. The community service questions are separate from the court’s pro bono reporting requirements, and answering these questions does not constitute compliance with the required pro bono responses. Trust Accounting The statement also requires that all lawyers indicate whether they comply with the Bar’s trust accounting requirements and the interest on trust accounts rule. By answering the trust accounting question online, members certify they comply with Bar rules that mandate, “All nominal and short-term funds belonging to clients or third persons which are placed in trust with any member of The Florida Bar practicing from an office or other business location within the State of Florida shall be deposited in one or more interest-bearing trust checking accounts in an eligible financial institution for the benefit of the Foundation.” The Florida Bar Foundation may be contacted at (800) 541-2195 (for in-state members only) or (407) 843-0045 to answer IOTA questions. Installments Members who meet eligibility requirements may pay their annual fees in three equal installments. The first payment must be postmarked by August 15. To be eligible, members must be in the second or third year since admission to the Bar or be employed by a government agency in a nonelected position that requires the individual to maintain membership in good standing with the Bar. Only annual fees or prorated fees may be paid in installments. Section dues must be paid in full. The three payments must be postmarked by August 15, November 1, and February 1, 2002. The Bar will send statements for the second and third installments. A $50 late fee will be assessed if any payment is received late. For more information on paying in installments, see Rule 1-7.3(c). Other Options Bar members also may join sections and the Out-of-State Practitioners Division using the fee form. Sections marked show the attorney’s current membership. To join other sections, members may darken the circles next to the section they want to join and include the section dues with their membership fees. The fee statement also provides lawyers the opportunity to reduce their section dues by joining combinations of the Government Lawyer Section with the Administrative Law Section and/or the Criminal Law Section or the Administrative Law Section and the Criminal Law Section. Members also may opt for inactive membership by marking the inactive status proclamation located near the bottom of the front page of the active membership statement and paying their fees by a postmark date of August 15. Active members may not elect inactive status online. Those who chose inactive status on last year’s statement will receive an inactive membership fee statement this year. It has many of the same features as the active membership fee statement, but does not allow the inactive member to join sections. Inactive members, however, can become affiliate members of the Out-of-State Practitioners Division and the Tax Section for $20 each. By choosing inactive status, Bar members will reduce their annual fees by $90 and get automatic exemptions from continuing legal education requirements. They will, however, also give up a number of privileges, including the privilege to practice or advise on Florida law or hold a job that requires a Florida law license; to participate in the Bar’s certification program; to vote in Bar elections or be counted for purposes of apportionment of the Board of Governors; and to receive Bar publications, including the Journal and annual directory. Inactive members do continue to receive the Bar News. Inactive members who wish to become active again must call the Bar’s Membership Records Department at (850) 561-5832 or (800) 561-8060, ext. 5832.last_img read more

Short-termism leads to ‘bad politics, bad finance’, Swiss Council of States warns

first_imgOne common goal for everyone, he said, is sustainability in the energy world.“The real challenge has been, and still is in some countries, to decouple economic growth from energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions,” he said.Lombardi said politicians needed a clear, long-term strategy and to be consistent in the details of their political work and in the details of the laws they passed, as well as in the implementation of the laws they had backed.They also need to work together with other politicians for a common goal.“The worst thing politicians can do is to be so eager to win the next election, or get some results in the opinion polls, that they immediately react to everything,” he said. ”This makes life very difficult for normal people and destroys the market, and when you achieve destruction of the market, you do not have any progress.”Lombardi pointed to the European energy market as an example, where several countries fought with good intentions against nuclear energy, which in the end led to involuntary support of the cheapest energy source without subsidies – coal.“We need jobs, and in Europe we are losing jobs, and with the clean tech challenge comes a possibility to create more jobs and opportunities in the economy,” he said.However, the clean energy challenge could also make European economies less competitive with the rest of the world.He said that question had yet to be solved. Strategies – both in finance and in politics – should by their nature be long term, according to Filippo Lombardi, president of the Council of States in Switzerland.He told the audience at the TBLI conference in Zurich last week that while politics and the financial sector both viewed each other in a bad light, they actually had something in common – short-termism.Lombardi said: “Short-termism is the rule for a bad financial approach and it is the rule for bad politics. Politicians who only [look] to the next election or the next opinion poll and [investors and businesses] that only think of the next quarterly report or tomorrow’s performance at the stock exchange do not try to build on the long term.“This is the mentality we have to change – in the investment world and in politics. And we have to learn from each other, and we have to listen to each other. We must learn to listen to the advice and concerns of people and the experiences from experts who have been studying and researching certain issues.”last_img read more