Read the case study below and answer ALL the questions that follow Nestle's Trademark Confusion May Cost The Company Credibility On its website, Nestle, maker of some of the world's most famous and beloved food and beverage brands, states under its Ethical Business heading, "Performing in an ethical manner is at the core of Nestl's business approach. Upholding strong ethical principles, not only in our direct business. but also throughout our entire value chain, is fundamental to how we operate. It underpins the trust our consumers have in us as well as our license to operate. "We work to foster the 'do the right thing for the right reason' mindset throughout the organization. Everyone at Nestle contributes to Creating Shared Value, making our activities and operations more efcient and enhancing our competitive advantage, by reinforcing our reputation." Nestle fosters an internal and external environment of honesty, fair dealings and integrity in everything Nestle does. In today's world, being a good corporate citizen, encouraging fair play and generating a compelling corporate culture for employees and suppliers as well as all other stakeholders is essential. Increasingly, consumers make decisions relative to the behaviors of the corporate parent. Nestle's vision statement indicates that Nestle's ambition is to be a leading, competitive... company...." Nestled within their corporate values, being competitive seems just. 0n the Corporate Business Principles page is the heading, Nestl Code of Business Conduct. The basic tenets of behavior are stated, "Our Code of Business Conduct species certain non-negotiable minimum standards in key areas of employee behaviour. including compliance with laws. conicts of interests. anti-trust and fair dealing, bribery, corruption (UNGC Principle 10), discrimination, harassment. and integrity. We believe in the importance of free competition and are committed to acting with integrity in all situations." So, it is deeply saddening and quite surprising that Nestle ran afoul of the EU's District Court in The Hague in Nestle's battle with Impossible Foods, maker of Impossible Burger. The Court had some harsh comments on Nestl's business practices. Nestle lost its trademark infringement case as the Court sided with Impossible Foods. But, it is clear from the Court's ruling that this food ght was more titan a mere trademark infringement case. Based on the Court's rulings, it appears that Nestle made a decision to "frustrate the European launch of Impossible Burger." The Court became suspicious of Nestl's motives. The Court learned that Nestle had originally wanted to license Impossible Burger for Europe. Alter the initial approach and discussion occurred where Nestle learned a lot from Impossible Foods' documents, Nestle decided to create its own plantbased burger patty, named Incredible Burger in Europe. (The U.S. version is Awesome Burger.) The Court's opinion was that the confusion aspect of the case was in behest of Nestle wanting Impossible Burger's potential European market share for itself. The case of Impossible Burger vs. Incredible Burg er is essentially a case of trademark infringement with an ulterior motive. In other words, Nestle violated its sanctied ethics and principles on the altar of market dominance. Impossible Burger is the US. brand launched from Impossible Foods in 2016. It is the epitome of the Impossible Foods mission to create products with taste and nutritional benets of meat without all the environmental and health baggage of meat. A sciencedriven company, Impossible Foods research creates products with plant proteins that recreate meat nutrition as well as having all the hedonic effects of eating meat. Nestle saw an opening to get into the European market before Impossible Burger. Nestle ditched its desire to license Impossible Burger and created its own product, Incredible Burger. Impossible Foods brought the trademark infringement case stating that consumers would be confused, thinking that Incredible Burger was in fact Impossible Burger and of the same source as Impossible Burger. Confusion cases are frequent. The problem is that confusion is a consumer's perception when making a purchase decision. In the U.S., trademark infringement exists if a trademark owner can show that a competitor is using a similar trademark that is "likely to cause confusion, cause mistake or to deceive." Some cases are necessary and understandable such as Kimberly Clark's Huggie's diapers vs. H. Douglas Enter Inc.'s, Buggies diapers or W. L. Gore's Glide dental oss vs. Johnson and Johnson's Easy Slide. Others are headshakers like General Mills 1983 case {which it ultimately dropped) against Richard Wehde's (pronounced WeeDee) and Charles Morris" Chicago area hot dog restaurant, Wee-Dee's Wee Nees. General lvlills' argument was that Wee-Dee was too similar to Wheaties. Similarity between trademarks is considered "the most important consideration" and "seminal factor" in deciding whether there is confusion. In fact, similarity between names is the basis of many trademark infringement cases. Additionally, the US. courts have judged that similarity in sound and meaning are two separate, important criteria for determining confusion.

The EU Court ruled that the similarity of the sound and meanings of the words Impossible and Incredible were very strong. The Court ruled that both words share visual similarity. Both words have the same number of letters and, interestingly, both words have same letters in same places of their spellings. These similarities could cause confusion. And, in deciding for Impossible Foods, the EU Court stated that already without Impossible Burger yet in European markets - there were instances of customer confusion even though perceptions of Nestl's Incredible Burger are that it is of poorer quality. Nestle argued that Incredible Burger communicated that the burger would have exceptional quality and because the packaging also says "Gourmet Garden" that the name Incredible Burger descn'bed information as to the product itself. In other words. Incredible Burgerwith Gourmet Garden would communicate plant-based burger. The Court nixed this line of argument because Incredible Burger isjust not the same as "Lentil Burger" or Cheese Burger" in that the word "Incredible" does not convey actual information about the product's makeup. It appears that the EU Court sensed Nestle's corporate behavior was sketchy. Not only did Nestle create a similar product with a similar name. but also the Court found that Nestle knew of the Impossible Burgertrademark in advance of launching their Incredible Burger. This means that Nestle launched Incredible Burger "at risk" thereby exposing itselfto not only legal measures but also nancial consequences. Based on the judgment, Nestle has four weeks in which to change the name of its product. in other words. rebrand the plant-based burger. Nestle has agreed to change the name of its product to Sensational Burger even though a spokesperson indicated that Nestle would appeal the ruling. Sloppy naming is one thing. This happens often. lHG's Hotel Indigo is not trademarked. as it could not be owned worldwide. But. causing confusion in order to intentionally foil a competitor is bad behavior, especially from an enterprise that prides itself on its honest. above-board, ethical business practices Nestle is a big powerful company with many great brands. Why would a company besmirch its values and credibility by behaving in such an underhanded, unethical manner? The fact that the Court recognized how Nestle used what it learned from Impossible Foods to then quickly create its own brand, albeit of lesser quality. seems to y in the face of the Nestl's own ethics proclamations. When younger consumers are increasingly making purchase decisions on the basis of corporate behavior, this Nestle behavior seems rather shortsighted. And, it undermines some of the principles that make Nestle so attractive relative to other corporations. Being big and powerful can be an enormous asset for a company, but only if that size and strength are used wisely. As the legal counsel for Impossible Foods, Dana Wagner. told Financial Times. "We're grateful that the court recognized the importance of our trademarks and supported our efforts to protect our brand against incursion from a powerful multinational giant." Competing with a competitor is acceptable: our brand landscape is filled with highly successful fast followers. Corporate conniving to shut off competition is unacceptable. Citizens expect corporations to do the right thing. Betraying the basics of good behavior has no place in our changing world. Source: Light, L. (2020}. Nestl's Trademark Confusion May Cost The Company Credibility. (online).

Available at: httpszitwwwforbesconvsitestiagylightf2020l06f04lnestls-trademark-confusion-may-cost-the-company- credibiliggl?sh=3cadi'46b2395

Question:

Explain Nestle's business ethics inconsistencies and what comprises cost of these ethics inconsistencies mean for the company.