Snoop Dogg Drops the Mic: Edible Arrangements Accused of Swiping “Swizzle” — Is This the Tastiest Celebrity Beef Yet?
Added on September 13, 2025 inEntertainment News Cards
Popular
Numerology Meets Netflix: Get Your Daily Dose of Cosmic Cinema Suggestions Powered By Our AI Astrologer. Find The Show Or Movie You Were Meant To See!
So here we are, smack dab in the middle of what Mercury retrograde might call ‘communication chaos,’ and guess what? Snoop Dogg — yes, the legendary rapper turned ice cream entrepreneur — is duking it out in a federal courtroom over a single, supposedly magical word: “Swizzle.” Sounds like the title of a funky track or a dance move, right? Nope, it’s the name on his Tropical Sherbet Swizzle, the flavor that’s got Walmart and Kroger shelves buzzing, now caught in a bitter trademark skirmish with Edible Arrangements. The question swirling in my mind — is it possible for a single word to freeze the future of an entire dessert empire? Seems the stars have aligned to make this a frosty showdown filled with legal jabs and chocolate-drizzled drama. Buckle up, because this isn’t just about ice cream, it’s about who really owns the swirl. LEARN MORE
Snoop Dogg is locked in a federal courtroom clash with Edible Arrangements over a single word, “Swizzle,” which now threatens the future of his ice cream brand.
The Hip-Hop icon’s dessert venture, Bosslady Foods LLC, has filed a lawsuit in Connecticut, accusing Edible Arrangements of trying to push his company out of the frozen treat market by claiming exclusive rights to the term “Swizzle.”
The dispute centers on the Tropical Sherbet Swizzle flavor from Snoop Dogg’s Dr. Bombay ice cream line, which is sold in major retailers including Walmart and Kroger.
Edible Arrangements, known for its chocolate-covered fruit bouquets, has held trademarks involving “Swizzle” for more than ten years.
After Bosslady debuted the sherbet in 2023, Edible fired off cease-and-desist letters and later challenged the company’s trademark application, threatening to “vigorously enforce” its rights.
Bosslady’s legal team argues Edible’s claims don’t hold up. They assert that the “Swizzle” mark only applies to chocolate-dipped fruit, not frozen desserts and insist that the term is too generic to be trademarked.
The company states that “swizzle” has long been used in the food industry to describe drizzled syrup and that Edible misled the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office by failing to disclose that others had already used the term.
Bosslady’s attorney, Todd S. Sharinn, pointed to entrepreneur Shari Fitzpatrick, founder of Shari’s Berries, as the original source of the term.
“By her own account, Shari Fitzpatrick—the owner of Shari’s Berries and Berried in Chocolate, among others—came up with the term ‘swizzle’ one day while drizzling chocolate syrup on fruit,” Sharinn said.
He added, “Fitzpatrick did not use or register the ‘swizzle’ term as a trademark, opting instead to place it into the public domain as a signifier for the act of decoratively drizzling syrup on fruit and other foodstuffs, as well as the resulting ‘swizzle’ design or pattern thereby created.”
The lawsuit claims Edible falsely told the USPTO that no one else had the right to use the “Swizzle” mark, despite lacking any license or permission from Fitzpatrick.
Snoop Dogg’s company Bosslady accuses Edible of trying to monopolize the frozen dessert space by threatening to launch its own Swizzle-branded ice cream.
The complaint also references Edible’s past legal battles with companies like 1-800-Flowers and Fresh Fruit Bouquet Company, portraying the brand as a serial filer of lawsuits aimed at stifling competition.
Bosslady is asking the court to cancel six of Edible’s trademarks, block the company from using “Swizzle” on ice cream, and award monetary damages.
Auto Amazon Links: No products found.
This will close in 0 seconds
This will close in 0 seconds
){kind=link}