LOS ANGELES (AP) — Candace Nelson plays a judge on the Food Network’s reality television show “Cupcake Wars.” But now her cupcakes are at the center of a fight with a cupcake upstart.

Nelson’s company, Sprinkles Cupcakes, is so frosted that it filed a federal trademark-infringement lawsuit Friday in Connecticut against a store named Pink Sprinkles. The lawsuit claims the similarity in names is likely to cause confusion in the marketplace.

The lawsuit says Sprinkles opened its first store in Beverly Hills in 2005 and became a national phenomenon as the cupcakes were featured on Oprah Winfrey, Martha Stewart and other shows. It is opening stores around the country.

Pink Sprinkles opened in 2009 and calls itself “Fairfield’s first cupcake boutique.”

Messages were left Monday for the owner of Pink Sprinkles.

(© Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

Comments (5)
  1. Anise says:

    Ridiculous. Why can’t she be content with the millions already made AND the revenue from her tv show. How extremely petty and selfish. I now will never eat at sprinkles again.

  2. Chuck U Farley says:

    people who are ignorant to copyright, trademark and intellectual property laws that shaped this country always make their petty arguments about money.

    It’s a possibly infringing name and causes consumer confusion. It doesnt matter if Sprinkles is already rich.

    Go ahead and open up a “Land Of Disney” theme park and I’m sure you’d get mad at Disney for coming after you

  3. alan hart says:

    Perhaps the candy company that actually makes Sprinkles should sue both of them for stealing his product name.

  4. duh says:

    Gotta love how plaintiff’s always allege that the public is too ignorant to differentiate between two brand names. To say, by making a brand ‘sprinkles’, should also assume possession of ‘[anything] sprinkles’ and/or ‘sprinkles [anything]’ is pretty far-reaching. My judgement for plaintiff would depend largely on any proof that the defendant intentionally branded their product to cause, or take advantage of, this perceived confusion.