Their "mouth-melt"taste and geometric shape "not found in nature"means that Pringles must henceforth be struck from the list of snacks that Brits can call "crisps,"and, more crucially, that they can tax.
Britain's High Court ruled Friday that the snack was more akin to cookies than potato chips, awarding its judgment to Pringles-maker Procter and Gamble. The company had successfully argued that Pringles were manufactured from dough, not potatoes themselves, and contained "nonpotato flours,"even though the back of a Pringles tube does say the snack is made from "dehydrated potatoes."
Britain's High Court ruled Friday that the snack was more akin to cookies than potato chips, awarding its judgment to Pringles-maker Procter and Gamble. The company had successfully argued that Pringles were manufactured from dough, not potatoes themselves, and contained "nonpotato flours,"even though the back of a Pringles tube does say the snack is made from "dehydrated potatoes."
Now that the snack is not legally a potato chip, the company stands to save millions of dollars in U.K. customs duty.
The potential outcomes from the ruling are mixed, though. One is that consumers, so confused as to what they can legally designate the snack, will be forced to simply ask to, "Pass the Pringles,"leading the brand into the world of genericized trademarks.
The other is a potential image issue: if Pringles aren't potato chips, what ARE they?
The other is a potential image issue: if Pringles aren't potato chips, what ARE they?
