There seems to be no way to convince the Unilever Goliath to stop its arrogant, and unauthorized use of the SKIPPY name that Percy Crosby created, and made famous, other than to announce that Unilever has been placed in SKIPPY’S Hall of Shame for its corrupt and fraudulent marketing.  It has often been said that “there’s no honor among thieves”, and this applies to Unilever’s willful blindness in stealing the SKIPPY name, goodwill and business from Skippy, Inc. to build its peanut butter racket, claiming to “own” the name since 1933.

When Unilever announced on January 3, 2013 that it was selling its SKIPPY business in Little Rock, Arkansas and China to Hormel Foods for $700 Million dollars, Percy Crosby’s heirs, SKIPPY’S many fans and namesakes were not smiling.  Despite the fact that Skippy, Inc.,  repeatedly warned that “SKIPPY is NOT for sale”, Unilever continued to ignore our prior, superior rights as owner-licensor of SKIPPY, knowing that it had no marketable title to sell to Hormel.

Unilever was aware that it would be risky to admit that Skippy, Inc. in 1933 sued their predecessor (Rosefield Packing Co., then bankrupt in California), and prevailed in 1934 when the U.S. Patent Office prohibited the registration of SKIPPY peanut butter as a matter of statutory law. Skippy, Inc. v. Rosefield Packing Co., Ltd., Opposition No. 13,134.  That 1934 decision became final when Rosefield filed no answer or appeal, whereby Rosefield, aided and abetted by its corrupt Chicago counsel, conspired to ignore the decision and to steal by secretive means Percy Crosby’s multi-million dollar SKIPPY licensing business.

The timeline of the “History of SKIPPY” on Unilever’s website is revealing by its major omissions, www.peanutbutter.com.  There is no reference to the years of Skippy litigation history (1933 et seq,) or the illegal confinement of Percy Crosby in a New York State mental hospital in 1949 where he would remain until his tragic death in 1964.   Rosefield et al., instrumental in Crosby’s confinement, was able to build the SKIPPY peanut butter racket with illicit SKIPPY profits.  This is the true story that Unilever don’t want the public to know.

On January 15, 2013, Skippy, Inc. filed a complaint to the Federal Trade Commission and Justice Department Antitrust Division, seeking an investigation of Unilever’s invalid SKIPPY title and sale to Hormel.  Our request was denied and no action was taken.  It appears that was because Unilever and/or Hormel asked for “early termination” to avoid an investigation, which was granted on January 22, 2013.  Thus, once again Unilever has succeeded in avoiding any Government scrutiny of its dark cloud on the title of SKIPPY, and its fraudulent marketing under Skippy’s trade name, mark and goodwill.

Skippy, Inc. has no intent to remain silent while letting Unilever receive $700 Million in cash from Hormel, without making restitution to Skippy, Inc.   Our government of laws were never intended by Congress or the courts to allow a willful infringer to become unjustly enriched by its own misconduct.  To do so is contrary to public policy.

©2013 SKIPPY, Inc