In a dramatic legal twist, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated Edible Arrangements’ trademark infringement lawsuit against rival 1-800-Flowers, overturning a lower court’s ruling that prematurely shut the case down.

The appellate panel ruled that the Georgia federal judge erred in dismissing Edible’s claims under res judicata, a doctrine that bars relitigation of already-decided issues. Instead, the judges found the conduct at issue represented new alleged violations that occurred after a 2016 settlement between the two companies.

A Decade-Long Rivalry Rekindled

The case traces its roots to a 2014 Connecticut lawsuit where Edible Arrangements accused 1-800-Flowers of infringing its fruit bouquet trademarks. The parties reached a settlement in 2016, but tensions reignited in 2020 when Edible alleged that its competitor purchased keywords related to Edible’s products for online search ads.

Judge Victoria Calvert had previously sided with 1-800-Flowers, ruling the settlement shielded the company from further liability. But the appellate panel disagreed, focusing on the fine print of the agreement.

Panel Finds New Infringement, Not Old Conduct

The judges highlighted that while the 2016 deal released 1-800-Flowers from prior keyword bidding claims, it did not preclude new claims arising after that date. They further emphasized that the Federal Trade Commission never approved any keyword bidding cessation plan as mentioned in the settlement.

Comparing the dispute to the 2014 In Re Managed Care case, the panel declared that Edible’s situation was “quite different” and that each post-settlement act of keyword bidding amounted to a separate, new claim.

Breach of Contract Claim Also Revived

In another win for Edible Arrangements, the appellate court found that Judge Calvert failed to address the company’s breach of contract claim altogether—reviving that as well.

Edible’s counsel, Edward A. Bedard, praised the ruling:

“We’re pleased with this decisive win. The court’s ruling makes clear that 1-800-Flowers cannot avoid scrutiny for its post-settlement conduct involving Edible’s protected marks.”

Attorneys Charles H. Hooker III and Adam H. Charnes of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP represent 1-800-Flowers, while Jason S. Alloy, Jeremy U. Littlefield, and Edward A. Bedard of Robbins Alloy Belinfante Littlefield LLC advocate for Edible Arrangements.

The Trademark Battle Marches On

The case now returns to Georgia federal court, where Edible Arrangements will resume its pursuit of justice over what it claims are ongoing violations of its hard-won trademarks.

The decision underscores that in trademark law, a settlement’s finality isn’t a free pass for future misconduct—especially when competitors play keyword chess in the digital marketing arena.