Tootsie Roll Industries is taking legal action against a popular frozen yogurt chain, alleging the company is misappropriating one of its most recognizable characters and profiting from decades of brand goodwill.
In a complaint filed in federal court, Tootsie Roll alleges that 16 Handles Franchising used a “bootleg” version of Mr. Owl in connection with a frozen yogurt product called “Chocolate Pop,” creating, the candy company says, a misleading and unlawful association with Tootsie Pop. According to the lawsuit, the character used by 16 Handles is “confusingly similar” to Mr. Owl, the beloved cartoon figure who famously asks, “How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop?”
Tootsie Roll asserts that the frozen yogurt branding was not coincidental, contending that 16 Handles “intentionally copied and exploited” its trademarks, including the owl character, the “Pop” name, and the overall look and feel associated with Tootsie Pop products. The company states that the alleged imitation was designed to “cause confusion, mistake, or deception” among consumers into believing that the yogurt was affiliated with or approved by Tootsie Roll.
The lawsuit also states that Tootsie Roll attempted to resolve the issue before heading to court. According to the filing, the company sent a cease-and-desist letter in November 2025 demanding that 16 Handles stop using the disputed imagery. While the frozen yogurt chain reportedly made limited changes, Tootsie Roll alleges the response was inadequate and that the infringing conduct continued.
In its legal filing, Tootsie Roll characterizes the alleged infringement as willful, stating that 16 Handles acted “with full knowledge of Tootsie Roll’s famous marks and long-standing use of the Mr. Owl character.” The candy maker argues that such conduct not only harms its brand but also dilutes the distinctiveness of trademarks that have been part of American pop culture for generations.
Tootsie Roll seeks injunctive relief to permanently block 16 Handles from using the disputed branding, as well as significant monetary damages totaling millions of dollars. The company is also seeking an award of statutory damages, attorneys’ fees, and additional penalties tied to what it describes as the counterfeit use of its trademarks.
The case underscores how aggressively legacy brands are moving to protect iconic characters and imagery, especially as newer companies tap into nostalgia-driven marketing. Whether the court agrees that Mr. Owl was unlawfully cloned now rests with the judge, but Tootsie Roll has made clear it believes its famous owl deserves protection.
