Ben and Jerry’s independent directors lost a warrant claim against Israel’s business

A judge in the Southern District of New York on Monday ruled that Ben & Jerry’s had not shown irreparable harm in its request for a preliminary injunction against Unilever. Ben & Jerry’s board members earlier this month asked a court to prevent Unilever from making the transfer, arguing in court that the move could be used to oppose the social causes the brand supports.

Ben & Jerry’s independent board members and Unilever representatives did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The case, in which the ice cream maker’s independent board members sought to clarify their rights in relation to protecting the brand’s integrity and social mission, was set to be heard separately at a later date.

The rare legal battle between the branch and its parent stems from Ben & Jerry’s move to stop selling its products in certain Jewish neighborhoods in the West Bank and East Jerusalem after the existing licensing arrangement expired. Such sales, he said, were inconsistent with his values.

Unilever bought Ben & Jerry’s in 2000. One of the deals included agreeing to let Ben & Jerry’s independent board make its own decisions about its social mission.

Ben & Jerry’s move has sparked protests both inside and outside of Israel. Current Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and some American politicians criticized the decision. A number of US sovereign wealth funds have sold or threatened to sell shares of Unilever.

He went on to say that Unilever will sell the rights to the brand in Israel to a local licensor, adding that Ben & Jerry’s will be sold throughout Israel and the West Bank under both the Hebrew and Arabic names.

While that sale was blocked, with Ben & Jerry’s unable to block it entirely, lawyers for independent board members sought to stop Unilever from passing on its know-how and trade dress — citing trademark law that protects the look and feel of a product and distinguishes a brand. From other similar products – about new products.

Independent Ben & Jerry’s board members said the sale of the Israeli business was done without their consent. The brand argued that a local licensee could launch products using Ben & Jerry’s recipes, but the Vermont-based ice cream maker has names that contradict the social mission it espouses.

Unilever’s lawyers countered that Ben & Jerry’s arguments were too speculative. On Monday, the judge agreed with Unilever, ruling that Ben & Jerry’s alleged irreparable harm was “highly speculative” because it was based on a “hypothetical scenario involving many speculative steps.”

Ben & Jerry’s lawyers also said the injunction was needed to prevent consumer confusion, which owns Ben & Jerry’s social mission. The judge said the prospect of confusion was “remote” and that Ben & Jerry’s had offered no proof of such confusion or influence.

Corrections and enhancements
A caption attached to a photo of a Ben & Jerry’s ice cream factory in Be’er Tuvia, Israel, incorrectly stated that the action in the photo took place last month. The photo was taken in July 2021. (Edited on 22 August)

Write Saabira Chaudhuri and saabira.chaudhuri@wsj.com