I tried to put the complaint into RECAP, but it hasn't shown up yet, so here's another link. The sugar producers argue violations of the Lanham Act and California false advertising law (since the backlash against high fructose corn syrup has been good for sugar producers). Jeremy Sheff's work on unbranding might be of interest here--to what extent is there a social interest in preventing a company from changing the name of a product to something different? And what is sugar to a consumer anyway (recognizing that the meaning might be different to a chemist, as the meaning of "salt" is)?
Thanks to an eagle-eyed correspondent.