37 ms·

Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

260 points by justinmares 5y ago

joelrunyon 5y ago
"Earlier trademark owner" and longtime HN member here. Happy to answer whatever questions I can.
- danlugo92 5y ago
  Any plans to accept donations? You should spread this over more outlets, I think it's already being flagged here...
- dec0dedab0de 5y ago
  How do you think dealing with this will compare to running 100k in Antarctica?
- ilamont 5y ago
  In your opinion, is this coming from an overly aggressive IP-focused legal team more used to the way biotechs operate? Do you think the board is aware? Speaking of investors: Have you thought about making some of the celebrity voices who own a piece of the pie aware of what Impossible Foods is doing? In addition to blue-chip institutional investors, Impossible Foods’ existing individual investors include Jay Brown, Common, Kirk Cousins, Paul George, Peter Jackson, Jay-Z, Mindy Kaling, Trevor Noah, Alexis Ohanian, Kal Penn, Katy Perry, Questlove, Ruby Rose, Phil Rosenthal, Jaden Smith, Serena Williams, will.i.am and Zedd. https://impossiblefoods.com/media/news-releases/2020-08/impossible-foods-closes-200-million-in-new-funding-to-accelerate-growth https://impossiblefoods.com/media/news-releases/2020-08/impo...
nateliason 5y ago
Looks like they pretty blatantly copied the logo too, not a good look.
duffpkg 5y ago
Walgreens tried to pull this against one of ClearHealth's (Open source EMR system) trademarks. We prevailed but expect to spend $20k in legal fees and in TTAB court you could not recover fees (at that point in in time anyway). https://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92058521&pty=CAN https://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92058521&pty=CAN
makstaks 5y ago
Be curious to know if anyone who has trademark legal knowledge can answer this question. Since the word Impossible is common, as far as I can gather, if it is for a different industry you indeed could use it? edit: typo
moat 5y ago
Stay classy Impossible Foods
Sundog 5y ago
Am I reading this wrong or do they just think they can steal the trademark because they're bigger? Now that I think about it, looks like they ripped off his logo too...
- sct202 5y ago
  Yeah the Impossible Foods logo looks like the same font without the strike out in the middle. And according to the filings the logo been registered to ImpossibleHQ since 2012 and that's also documented on the web archive with that same logo being used in 2011 https://web.archive.org/web/20111031071828/http://impossiblehq.com/ https://web.archive.org/web/20111031071828/http://impossible...
  - anm89 5y ago
    Would be epic if he was able to turn this around and get millions out of them.
- tomtheelder 5y ago
  I don't think that's what's happening at all. Seems like Impossible existed prior, and had trademarks. Impossible Foods started later, and used the name (and logo for that matter) for years without being questioned. Now recently, Impossible brought trademark threats against Impossible Foods. What is being referenced here is like a countersuit from Impossible Foods, and their demand is specifically that they be granted the Impossible trademark in the context of "recipes, food ingredients, and cooking information." The main source of conflict would be around Impossible's "Impossible Nutrition," which is trademarked. However, Impossible Foods predates that product and trademark. So it seems like originally there was no conflict as they were in different areas- that's totally normal. However after Impossible Foods had been created, Impossible launched a line of nutrition products that create a possible conflict. Impossible then made some trademark threats against Impossible Foods, and Impossible Foods has responded with a suit asking for relief and that they be granted the Trademark in the context of food. I'm open to the possibility that I'm reading this wrong, but I think Impossible Foods is 100% in the right here. The logo thing is definitely dicier, but they do seem different enough that you probably wouldn't get in trouble for that.
seane 5y ago
That is some bullshit.
nathanbarry 5y ago
Yikes. I'm glad you're going public with this. Companies shouldn't be able to get away with legal bullying like this.
- joelrunyon 5y ago
  Thanks for the support.
londgine 5y ago
If the "later" impossible food succeeds in canceling the trademark, does that mean that any company can market their product as "impossible burgers"?
- Mountain_Skies 5y ago
  I'm sure their goal is to steal the trademark for their own exclusive use if they can swing that. Nullifying it so it is a generic term available to all would be worse for them than simply buying it from the rightful owners as they'd have to completely rebrand.
- NobodyNada 5y ago
  No, Impossible Food is suing to cancel Impossible HQ's trademark, and not their own. They want to be the only company allowed to use the "Impossible" branding, even though they weren't the first.
  - singlow 5y ago
    Actually it seems they are just trying to avoid being sued frivolously by a company that is making false claims about the trademark.
danlugo92 5y ago
Why can't I upvote this?
decremental 5y ago
Well now I'm definitely not going to eat any of their gross fake meat.
afhjk23bh 5y ago
You will eat the bugs. You will eat the soy. You will live in the pod. You will own nothing.
emilfihlman 5y ago
This is absolutely awful. Isn't this a textbook case of malicious suing, SLAPP?
- skmurphy 5y ago
  No this is an ongoing attempt at theft. They don't want to be paid off they want his trademark even thought it's been granted for a decade and he is using it for an active business.
kaycebasques 5y ago
As a vegan myself this is very unfortunate because we are already easy targets and subject to a lot of prejudice. Impossible Meat bullying a small company might unleash a backlash of anti-vegan sentiment that can take on a life of its own. Make no mistake it has been there all along. Go back to other discussions about veganism here on HN and you will see the common anti-vegan memes. But when you're one of the leading brands of a minority movement like veganism you really need to make sure your PR is impeccable because your actions have broad-reaching effects beyond your business. And to be 100% clear I am not being an apologist for Impossible. If they are indeed bullying and the case is as clear cut as this article describes then that is ugly behavior.
- jrm4 5y ago
  Black person here. I don't think (though I'm not going to say I'm 100% certain) that the word "prejudice" is best here? You (very probably) made a choice to be a certain way, here. So, the "judice" part is correct, and people should perhaps be nicer, but this doesn't feel like the right word.
  - kaycebasques 5y ago
    Thank you for the feedback. I understand your point. I was going off a dictionary definition along these lines: > preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience But I totally get that prejudice has connotations here that make it inappropriate for me as a white man to use
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - ghostbrainalpha 5y ago
      Absurd. Have you heard of "religious prejudice"? That's prejudice and based off of a choice. Racial discrimination does not own the term prejudice.
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
Mountain_Skies 5y ago
Will you concede that many, but certainly not all, vegans bring it upon themselves with their moralistic pontificating about those who are not vegan?
- delecti 5y ago
  Everything I've seen suggests to me that most people's annoyance with perceived "preachy" vegans comes from cognitive dissonance around being forced to confront that vegans have a good point. Why confront real issues when you can make a bacon joke and say "oh, I could never give up cheese"? It's like when talking with someone who is very disciplined about exercise. Many will say something like "wow you're so lucky to have such good genes" to deflect from the fact that they're just not willing to put in that level of work. And I say that as someone who is not vegan, and is pretty lax with exercise.
  - unanswered 5y ago
    > being forced to confront that vegans have a good point That you/they take it as a moral right to force people to do anything, even to consider some point, demonstrates the very moral corruptness that people hate about vegans.
    - JadeNB 5y ago
      > That you/they take it as a moral right to force people to do anything, even to consider some point, demonstrates the very moral corruptness that people hate about vegans. I think in no other context on Hacker News, which is a hive of far-reaching intellectual curiosity, would it be taken as a negative to claim that confronting someone with a possibly uncomfortable point would be taken as moral corruption. (Note that 'forcing' here is not in the sense of, say, using physical force to compel someone; it is just in the sense of presenting information, so that people's only possible responses are to consider that information or somehow to ignore or discount it without acknowledging it.)
    - delecti 5y ago
      The power of an argument is plainly not "force" in its own right. Nit picking a figure of speech like "forced to confront" is not a persuasive point.
skmurphy 5y ago
He has to fight back. This happens more than people realize. He has a well established trademark that protects an operational business. He should be able to win this. I am not an attorney or a naming / trademark expert but can recommend some good ones.
nomla 5y ago
Didn’t Nissan try something similar to a guy with a the last name Nissan and a computer company he named Nissan Computers? I wonder if he might have some recommendations to help fight this corporate bully.
- JoeAltmaier 5y ago
  Had a friend named Mike Rowe. We always thought he should start Mike Rowe Computers.
  - Mordisquitos 5y ago
    He wouldn't have been the first to make use of that name: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._MikeRoweSoft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._MikeRoweSoft
    - cute_boi 5y ago
      From Wikipedia its kinda funny: The case received international press attention following Microsoft's perceived heavy-handed approach to a 12th grade student's part-time web design business and the subsequent support that Rowe received from the online community. A settlement was eventually reached, with Rowe granting ownership of the domain to Microsoft in exchange for an Xbox and additional compensation.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
solarkraft 5y ago
Wow, this deteriorates my view of impossible foods as the “good guys”. I get that they want the brand, but that they apparently haven’t even attempted to buy it is pretty telling.
- Tagbert 5y ago
  Remember that this is a countersuit to Impossible’s trademark suit against Impossible Foods. The company’s products were originally in separate product categories and should not have conflicted. Then Impossible brought out nutrition supplements which got closer to the food category. Yes, the logos probably look to much like each other though both are rather generic condensed bold sans-serif logotypes.
dehrmann 5y ago
If their nutrition products and trademark pre-date Impossible Foods, Impossible Foods might be in some trouble. IANAL, but trademarks on actual words are first-come, first-served, and for a specific context. Apple Computer and Apple Records/Corps.: ok, no customer confusion. Apple Computer launches a product called iTunes and a service named Apple Music, it gets dicey.
- joeyoungblood 5y ago
  Not really that simple. Nissan Motors spent nearly a decade dragging a guy with the last name of "Nissan" through trademark court battles over his prior existing company "Nissan Computers" which did and still does own the domains Nissan.com and Nissan.net. Ultimately Nissan Computers won and got a small amount back for attorney fees but claims it was less than 2% they spent defending their brand and mark (IIRC he did not have a federally registered trademark but a service mark from a state of something like that).
  - singlow 5y ago
    So it was that simple? The trademark of a non competing company in a different industry was not considered infringing by the courts?
Mordisquitos 5y ago
This very much reinforces my scepticism and distrust towards this trend of branded so-called "meat-substitutes" and "plant-based cheeses" etc. I am not a vegetarian or a vegan but, if I were, I would simply eat vegetables, legumes, pasta, rice, bread, fruits, nuts, you name it. It's not so hard, it's just normal food that has always existed and has always been a part of my diet anyway. People have eaten non-meat products since the dawn of history. For instance, meat was rare in the diets of the lower class of many societies, dairy products were only part of the diet of specific populations (e.g. Western Europe, Middle East, Masai, etc.), and the diet of some cultures has been vegetarian by principle from the start (the Jains of India). There are countless non-meat based recipes across all cultures, and preparing a meal without using meat, cheese or eggs is hardly rocket science — I often do it by accident without noticing. So, is there really that much value in these industrial "plant-based" meat/cheese substitutes? I don't think so, but they're being marketed as if they were a great step forward to "reduce our dependence on meat" — a dependence which does not actually exist. All I see is disruptive processed-food businesses, trying to gain a market captive into their branded products thanks to the cultural Zeitgeist and it's focus on sustainability. The fact that rice, beans, tomatoes, mushrooms, cabbages and onions are mere commodities that people can choose based on each item's quality, price, and personal tastes from any supplier, to cook with them as they please is not convenient for the processed-food business. They need people to get used to depending on their own branded products, because how else would they "substitute meat" out from their diet? This new industry is hoping to get younger environmentally-conscious generations to understand that, to be sustainable, the normal thing is to eat Beyond Meat™, or Impossible Foods™, or whatever other brand competes in the market for their attention. God forbid people eat mere stir-fried vegetables, legume stews, rice, or a myriad other dishes they could cook themselves! The greatest value of these companies is not in their technology to make "meat-substitutes". Rather, it is in getting customers to assume that they depend on their brand.
- iratewizard 5y ago
  I see fake meat companies as filling a need among people trying a meatless fad diet. The primary market being young women who want to fit in with a group that has a number of obnoxiously vocal vegans.
- 5y ago
gnicholas 5y ago
Is there a summary of Impossible Foods’ position? Would be interesting to know why they think this is appropriate/lawful.
gruez 5y ago
docket seems to be this: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59791788/impossible-foods-inc-v-impossible-x-llc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59791788/impossible-foo... I'm interested in seeing Impossible Food's complaint. Anyone with PACER access want to download them and share/contribute them to courtlistener?
- tslater2006 5y ago
  I just added it. Edit: also added the order to dismiss due to lack of personal jurisdiction and the trademark report document.
zwieback 5y ago
Reading this: http://casefilingsalert.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Impossible-Trademark-Dispute.pdf http://casefilingsalert.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Impos... it seems like Impossible X complained first and Impossible food is saying that they want it declared that they are not infringing on Impossible X's trademarks. IOW: little guy complained first and big guy is asking for relief that they are not doing anything wrong. Is there more to the story?
- ramblinrose 5y ago
  Thanks for sharing this. It looks like Impossible X (the defendant) was the first to sue to have Impossible Foods cease using their logo and trademark. And now Impossible Foods isn't budging and asserting their weight through counter-suit. It still feels very unfair even though the small guy started it; he's trying to protect his brand. He has supplied actual cases of confusion between the two companies according to this filing. He should have definitely included that information in this blog post though. It's more than a little misleading.
  - jawns 5y ago
    And isn't the company that holds the trademark legally obligated to defend it? My understanding is that if you aren't actively making sure that your trademark is not infringed upon, it bolsters the case that the trademark has been abandoned. So it's not like the trademark holder is looking for a fight. The law essentially forces their hand.
    - Brendinooo 5y ago
      Companies can have the same name if they're in different industries. Seems like Impossible X/HQ or whatever was contending overlap on the nutrition/food side. I'm not a lawyer and I'm not reading this closely as I'd need to in order to be more authoritative, but it seems like most of their trademarks are for non-food-related sectors. "Pharmaceutical Products" is the only one that looks close to "food" in the trademarks I'm seeing on their page. Not sure how you get from that to "recipes, food ingredients, and cooking information", but would love to hear from someone who would know!
tslater2006 5y ago
Case number for locating it in PACER: 5:2021cv02419 At a glance of the complaint it seems that Impossible X started this with complaints and legal action against mpossible Foods for infringing on their trademarks. The complaint additionally shows that Impossible X was granted their registration of IMPOSSIBLE on Jan 9th, 2018.
- maneesh 5y ago
  Here's a list of Impossible trademarks: https://impossiblex.com/trademarks/ https://impossiblex.com/trademarks/ Note the logo: Class 041 | 025 | 12/18/2012 https://trademark.trademarkia.com/impossible-85578345.html https://trademark.trademarkia.com/impossible-85578345.html The registration date was in 2012, and, apart from the blank line in the middle, is identical to impossible food's logo. Both use League Gothic Font.
  - tslater2006 5y ago
    Good info thanks. My comment wasn't intended to be a statement of fact by me, but rather what Impossible Foods claims. The complaint is now available on courtlistener.
  - Symmetry 5y ago
    That's for a trademark in the context of "exercise and fitness" though. You can have one Impossible doing that and another Impossible selling food and there's no consumer confusion so they're both fine. It's just when the fitness company started applying their existing branding to nutrition products in apparently 2018 that suddenly there was a conflict.
  - Brendinooo 5y ago
    Impossible Foods absolutely does not use League Gothic. It's using Tungsten Semibold, a font by Hoefler&Co.
maneesh 5y ago
When you look at the ImpossibleHQ vs Impossible Foods logo, it's obviously, without a doubt, a complete rip off. It's the sort of lawsuit that I would expect ImpossibleHQ to put against Impossible Foods, obviously not vice versa. It seems so clearly a rip off of the logo, that it's the kind of lawsuit that I want to invest in. Like -- I want to help fund a lawsuit against Impossible foods for millions that they ripped off the logo/trademark illegally. Is there any past examples of investment/crowdfunding for a lawsuit, where the investors earn returns if a lawsuit succeeds? This feels like an interesting opportunity for grassroots crowdfunding/investment for a David vs Goliath situation.
- g_p 5y ago
  > Is there any past examples of investment/crowdfunding for a lawsuit, where the investors earn returns if a lawsuit succeeds? Sounds like you're describing litigation funding (a fairly established market). You'd probably want to back it by insurance to cover the investors and party bringing the action against adverse costs exposure. Litigation funding is often provided by insurers anyway as a result, as they can put up the cash, and cover the risk of costs via their insurance.
  - nefitty 5y ago
    I wonder if there's a litigation betting market. I know there's prediction markets, but I'm wondering about a community dedicated to market making on any/all lawsuits.
    - dhosek 5y ago
      I can see that becoming a serious moral hazard. If a judge or juror can make money on a lawsuit that they're deciding reaching a particular verdict, then there's a very real danger that they will do so. I'm pretty sure that in the grand scheme of things we want less opportunity for this sort of corruption of the judicial process, not more.
      - nefitty 5y ago
TheGigaChad 5y ago
Vegan rats in action.
whoknowswhat11 5y ago
Link to Impossible's trademark (for nutrition - they have 18) https://trademark.trademarkia.com/impossible-nutrition-87116501.html https://trademark.trademarkia.com/impossible-nutrition-87116... This was from 2018 (important I think). Another was this: https://trademark.trademarkia.com/impossible-85578345.html https://trademark.trademarkia.com/impossible-85578345.html But the class is not a super overlap with impossible foods. Here is impossible foods mark. https://trademarks.justia.com/861/02/impossible-86102158.html https://trademarks.justia.com/861/02/impossible-86102158.htm... 2013 was the filing date here. With an english language word, the trademark protection is (generally) going to be a bit narrower (ie, specific class etc). For what it is worth, at a 10 second glance this is not the slam dunk little vs big player thing.
mint2 5y ago
Basically this just goes to show the way trademarks work is broken. One shouldn’t be able to trademark single words, or at the very least common ones.
- Symmetry 5y ago
  Just because a word is trademarked doesn't mean that someone else can't use, or even trademark, the same word in a different line of business. I can't call my new OS "Windows". I probably won't be able to start a line of computer monitors called "Windows" either. But if I wanted to open a line of restaurants under the "Windows" brand I'd probably be fine. Trademarks are only enforceable when there's a danger of consumer confusion.
  - mint2 5y ago
    In theory yes, but when a litigious company has deeper pockets, being in the right doesn’t matter if one doesn’t have enough money to prove it. Barring that type of one common word trademark would prevent some of those or make it cheaper to defend. For instance backcountry online suing things like coffee shops called backcountry nitro coffee; outdoor safety clinics called backcountry babes that taught avalanche safety for women; and many more. One word Generic terms in any field should explicitly not be trade-marketable.
kstenerud 5y ago
OK, I see what's going on here. Impossible Foods primary arguments are: - They use the mark IMPOSSIBLE with services relating to recipes, food ingredients, and cooking information, and Impossible X does not. - Impossible X has challenged their right to use the trademark in that manner, and so they want the courts to decide with finality who has what rights. - Since Impossible X has not asserted their rights to the mark in this manner in many years, and have not pursued any business in that area, Impossible Foods wants any trade marks in relation to food to be considered abandoned (incidentally, this is why big companies pursue trademark claims so aggressively). - They also want to be awarded costs (not a likely outcome, but always good to throw in). My dry reading of this gives the impression that they're likely to prevail. If you don't protect your trademark, especially against such a high profile company and let it run for years unchallenged, you risk losing it. This is to prevent people from submarining a lawsuit by allowing a company to build massive value in a mark you own rights to, only to snatch it away from them and hold it for ransom.
computer23 5y ago
This case is not so cut and dry. It looks like ImpossibleHQ's trademarks had nothing to do with food until 2016 when they filed a trademark in the nutrition space Impossible Foods was started before 2016, so it would seem to have priority in the food space.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  That doesn't justify copying the logo. A million logos would work equally well for Impossible Foods without stomping on ImpossibleHQ.

260 points by justinmares 5y ago

joelrunyon 5y ago

"Earlier trademark owner" and longtime HN member here. Happy to answer whatever questions I can.

danlugo92 5y ago
Any plans to accept donations? You should spread this over more outlets, I think it's already being flagged here...
dec0dedab0de 5y ago
How do you think dealing with this will compare to running 100k in Antarctica?
ilamont 5y ago
In your opinion, is this coming from an overly aggressive IP-focused legal team more used to the way biotechs operate? Do you think the board is aware? Speaking of investors: Have you thought about making some of the celebrity voices who own a piece of the pie aware of what Impossible Foods is doing? In addition to blue-chip institutional investors, Impossible Foods’ existing individual investors include Jay Brown, Common, Kirk Cousins, Paul George, Peter Jackson, Jay-Z, Mindy Kaling, Trevor Noah, Alexis Ohanian, Kal Penn, Katy Perry, Questlove, Ruby Rose, Phil Rosenthal, Jaden Smith, Serena Williams, will.i.am and Zedd. https://impossiblefoods.com/media/news-releases/2020-08/impossible-foods-closes-200-million-in-new-funding-to-accelerate-growth https://impossiblefoods.com/media/news-releases/2020-08/impo...

nateliason 5y ago

Looks like they pretty blatantly copied the logo too, not a good look.

duffpkg 5y ago

Walgreens tried to pull this against one of ClearHealth's (Open source EMR system) trademarks. We prevailed but expect to spend $20k in legal fees and in TTAB court you could not recover fees (at that point in in time anyway). https://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92058521&pty=CAN https://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92058521&pty=CAN

makstaks 5y ago

Be curious to know if anyone who has trademark legal knowledge can answer this question. Since the word Impossible is common, as far as I can gather, if it is for a different industry you indeed could use it? edit: typo

moat 5y ago

Stay classy Impossible Foods

Sundog 5y ago

Am I reading this wrong or do they just think they can steal the trademark because they're bigger? Now that I think about it, looks like they ripped off his logo too...

sct202 5y ago
Yeah the Impossible Foods logo looks like the same font without the strike out in the middle. And according to the filings the logo been registered to ImpossibleHQ since 2012 and that's also documented on the web archive with that same logo being used in 2011 https://web.archive.org/web/20111031071828/http://impossiblehq.com/ https://web.archive.org/web/20111031071828/http://impossible...
- anm89 5y ago
  Would be epic if he was able to turn this around and get millions out of them.
tomtheelder 5y ago
I don't think that's what's happening at all. Seems like Impossible existed prior, and had trademarks. Impossible Foods started later, and used the name (and logo for that matter) for years without being questioned. Now recently, Impossible brought trademark threats against Impossible Foods. What is being referenced here is like a countersuit from Impossible Foods, and their demand is specifically that they be granted the Impossible trademark in the context of "recipes, food ingredients, and cooking information." The main source of conflict would be around Impossible's "Impossible Nutrition," which is trademarked. However, Impossible Foods predates that product and trademark. So it seems like originally there was no conflict as they were in different areas- that's totally normal. However after Impossible Foods had been created, Impossible launched a line of nutrition products that create a possible conflict. Impossible then made some trademark threats against Impossible Foods, and Impossible Foods has responded with a suit asking for relief and that they be granted the Trademark in the context of food. I'm open to the possibility that I'm reading this wrong, but I think Impossible Foods is 100% in the right here. The logo thing is definitely dicier, but they do seem different enough that you probably wouldn't get in trouble for that.

seane 5y ago

That is some bullshit.

nathanbarry 5y ago

Yikes. I'm glad you're going public with this. Companies shouldn't be able to get away with legal bullying like this.

joelrunyon 5y ago
Thanks for the support.

londgine 5y ago

If the "later" impossible food succeeds in canceling the trademark, does that mean that any company can market their product as "impossible burgers"?

Mountain_Skies 5y ago
I'm sure their goal is to steal the trademark for their own exclusive use if they can swing that. Nullifying it so it is a generic term available to all would be worse for them than simply buying it from the rightful owners as they'd have to completely rebrand.
NobodyNada 5y ago
No, Impossible Food is suing to cancel Impossible HQ's trademark, and not their own. They want to be the only company allowed to use the "Impossible" branding, even though they weren't the first.
- singlow 5y ago
  Actually it seems they are just trying to avoid being sued frivolously by a company that is making false claims about the trademark.

danlugo92 5y ago

Why can't I upvote this?

decremental 5y ago

Well now I'm definitely not going to eat any of their gross fake meat.

afhjk23bh 5y ago

You will eat the bugs. You will eat the soy. You will live in the pod. You will own nothing.

emilfihlman 5y ago

This is absolutely awful. Isn't this a textbook case of malicious suing, SLAPP?

skmurphy 5y ago
No this is an ongoing attempt at theft. They don't want to be paid off they want his trademark even thought it's been granted for a decade and he is using it for an active business.

kaycebasques 5y ago

As a vegan myself this is very unfortunate because we are already easy targets and subject to a lot of prejudice. Impossible Meat bullying a small company might unleash a backlash of anti-vegan sentiment that can take on a life of its own. Make no mistake it has been there all along. Go back to other discussions about veganism here on HN and you will see the common anti-vegan memes. But when you're one of the leading brands of a minority movement like veganism you really need to make sure your PR is impeccable because your actions have broad-reaching effects beyond your business. And to be 100% clear I am not being an apologist for Impossible. If they are indeed bullying and the case is as clear cut as this article describes then that is ugly behavior.

jrm4 5y ago
Black person here. I don't think (though I'm not going to say I'm 100% certain) that the word "prejudice" is best here? You (very probably) made a choice to be a certain way, here. So, the "judice" part is correct, and people should perhaps be nicer, but this doesn't feel like the right word.
- kaycebasques 5y ago
  Thank you for the feedback. I understand your point. I was going off a dictionary definition along these lines: > preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience But I totally get that prejudice has connotations here that make it inappropriate for me as a white man to use
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - ghostbrainalpha 5y ago
    Absurd. Have you heard of "religious prejudice"? That's prejudice and based off of a choice. Racial discrimination does not own the term prejudice.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago

Mountain_Skies 5y ago

Will you concede that many, but certainly not all, vegans bring it upon themselves with their moralistic pontificating about those who are not vegan?

delecti 5y ago
Everything I've seen suggests to me that most people's annoyance with perceived "preachy" vegans comes from cognitive dissonance around being forced to confront that vegans have a good point. Why confront real issues when you can make a bacon joke and say "oh, I could never give up cheese"? It's like when talking with someone who is very disciplined about exercise. Many will say something like "wow you're so lucky to have such good genes" to deflect from the fact that they're just not willing to put in that level of work. And I say that as someone who is not vegan, and is pretty lax with exercise.
- unanswered 5y ago
  > being forced to confront that vegans have a good point That you/they take it as a moral right to force people to do anything, even to consider some point, demonstrates the very moral corruptness that people hate about vegans.
  - JadeNB 5y ago
    > That you/they take it as a moral right to force people to do anything, even to consider some point, demonstrates the very moral corruptness that people hate about vegans. I think in no other context on Hacker News, which is a hive of far-reaching intellectual curiosity, would it be taken as a negative to claim that confronting someone with a possibly uncomfortable point would be taken as moral corruption. (Note that 'forcing' here is not in the sense of, say, using physical force to compel someone; it is just in the sense of presenting information, so that people's only possible responses are to consider that information or somehow to ignore or discount it without acknowledging it.)
  - delecti 5y ago
    The power of an argument is plainly not "force" in its own right. Nit picking a figure of speech like "forced to confront" is not a persuasive point.

skmurphy 5y ago

He has to fight back. This happens more than people realize. He has a well established trademark that protects an operational business. He should be able to win this. I am not an attorney or a naming / trademark expert but can recommend some good ones.

nomla 5y ago

Didn’t Nissan try something similar to a guy with a the last name Nissan and a computer company he named Nissan Computers? I wonder if he might have some recommendations to help fight this corporate bully.

JoeAltmaier 5y ago
Had a friend named Mike Rowe. We always thought he should start Mike Rowe Computers.
- Mordisquitos 5y ago
  He wouldn't have been the first to make use of that name: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._MikeRoweSoft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._MikeRoweSoft
  - cute_boi 5y ago
    From Wikipedia its kinda funny: The case received international press attention following Microsoft's perceived heavy-handed approach to a 12th grade student's part-time web design business and the subsequent support that Rowe received from the online community. A settlement was eventually reached, with Rowe granting ownership of the domain to Microsoft in exchange for an Xbox and additional compensation.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

solarkraft 5y ago

Wow, this deteriorates my view of impossible foods as the “good guys”. I get that they want the brand, but that they apparently haven’t even attempted to buy it is pretty telling.

Tagbert 5y ago
Remember that this is a countersuit to Impossible’s trademark suit against Impossible Foods. The company’s products were originally in separate product categories and should not have conflicted. Then Impossible brought out nutrition supplements which got closer to the food category. Yes, the logos probably look to much like each other though both are rather generic condensed bold sans-serif logotypes.

dehrmann 5y ago

If their nutrition products and trademark pre-date Impossible Foods, Impossible Foods might be in some trouble. IANAL, but trademarks on actual words are first-come, first-served, and for a specific context. Apple Computer and Apple Records/Corps.: ok, no customer confusion. Apple Computer launches a product called iTunes and a service named Apple Music, it gets dicey.

joeyoungblood 5y ago
Not really that simple. Nissan Motors spent nearly a decade dragging a guy with the last name of "Nissan" through trademark court battles over his prior existing company "Nissan Computers" which did and still does own the domains Nissan.com and Nissan.net. Ultimately Nissan Computers won and got a small amount back for attorney fees but claims it was less than 2% they spent defending their brand and mark (IIRC he did not have a federally registered trademark but a service mark from a state of something like that).
- singlow 5y ago
  So it was that simple? The trademark of a non competing company in a different industry was not considered infringing by the courts?

Mordisquitos 5y ago

This very much reinforces my scepticism and distrust towards this trend of branded so-called "meat-substitutes" and "plant-based cheeses" etc. I am not a vegetarian or a vegan but, if I were, I would simply eat vegetables, legumes, pasta, rice, bread, fruits, nuts, you name it. It's not so hard, it's just normal food that has always existed and has always been a part of my diet anyway. People have eaten non-meat products since the dawn of history. For instance, meat was rare in the diets of the lower class of many societies, dairy products were only part of the diet of specific populations (e.g. Western Europe, Middle East, Masai, etc.), and the diet of some cultures has been vegetarian by principle from the start (the Jains of India). There are countless non-meat based recipes across all cultures, and preparing a meal without using meat, cheese or eggs is hardly rocket science — I often do it by accident without noticing. So, is there really that much value in these industrial "plant-based" meat/cheese substitutes? I don't think so, but they're being marketed as if they were a great step forward to "reduce our dependence on meat" — a dependence which does not actually exist. All I see is disruptive processed-food businesses, trying to gain a market captive into their branded products thanks to the cultural Zeitgeist and it's focus on sustainability. The fact that rice, beans, tomatoes, mushrooms, cabbages and onions are mere commodities that people can choose based on each item's quality, price, and personal tastes from any supplier, to cook with them as they please is not convenient for the processed-food business. They need people to get used to depending on their own branded products, because how else would they "substitute meat" out from their diet? This new industry is hoping to get younger environmentally-conscious generations to understand that, to be sustainable, the normal thing is to eat Beyond Meat™, or Impossible Foods™, or whatever other brand competes in the market for their attention. God forbid people eat mere stir-fried vegetables, legume stews, rice, or a myriad other dishes they could cook themselves! The greatest value of these companies is not in their technology to make "meat-substitutes". Rather, it is in getting customers to assume that they depend on their brand.

iratewizard 5y ago
I see fake meat companies as filling a need among people trying a meatless fad diet. The primary market being young women who want to fit in with a group that has a number of obnoxiously vocal vegans.
5y ago

gnicholas 5y ago

Is there a summary of Impossible Foods’ position? Would be interesting to know why they think this is appropriate/lawful.

gruez 5y ago

docket seems to be this: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59791788/impossible-foods-inc-v-impossible-x-llc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59791788/impossible-foo... I'm interested in seeing Impossible Food's complaint. Anyone with PACER access want to download them and share/contribute them to courtlistener?

tslater2006 5y ago
I just added it. Edit: also added the order to dismiss due to lack of personal jurisdiction and the trademark report document.

zwieback 5y ago

Reading this: http://casefilingsalert.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Impossible-Trademark-Dispute.pdf http://casefilingsalert.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Impos... it seems like Impossible X complained first and Impossible food is saying that they want it declared that they are not infringing on Impossible X's trademarks. IOW: little guy complained first and big guy is asking for relief that they are not doing anything wrong. Is there more to the story?

ramblinrose 5y ago
Thanks for sharing this. It looks like Impossible X (the defendant) was the first to sue to have Impossible Foods cease using their logo and trademark. And now Impossible Foods isn't budging and asserting their weight through counter-suit. It still feels very unfair even though the small guy started it; he's trying to protect his brand. He has supplied actual cases of confusion between the two companies according to this filing. He should have definitely included that information in this blog post though. It's more than a little misleading.
- jawns 5y ago
  And isn't the company that holds the trademark legally obligated to defend it? My understanding is that if you aren't actively making sure that your trademark is not infringed upon, it bolsters the case that the trademark has been abandoned. So it's not like the trademark holder is looking for a fight. The law essentially forces their hand.
  - Brendinooo 5y ago
    Companies can have the same name if they're in different industries. Seems like Impossible X/HQ or whatever was contending overlap on the nutrition/food side. I'm not a lawyer and I'm not reading this closely as I'd need to in order to be more authoritative, but it seems like most of their trademarks are for non-food-related sectors. "Pharmaceutical Products" is the only one that looks close to "food" in the trademarks I'm seeing on their page. Not sure how you get from that to "recipes, food ingredients, and cooking information", but would love to hear from someone who would know!

tslater2006 5y ago

Case number for locating it in PACER: 5:2021cv02419 At a glance of the complaint it seems that Impossible X started this with complaints and legal action against mpossible Foods for infringing on their trademarks. The complaint additionally shows that Impossible X was granted their registration of IMPOSSIBLE on Jan 9th, 2018.

maneesh 5y ago
Here's a list of Impossible trademarks: https://impossiblex.com/trademarks/ https://impossiblex.com/trademarks/ Note the logo: Class 041 | 025 | 12/18/2012 https://trademark.trademarkia.com/impossible-85578345.html https://trademark.trademarkia.com/impossible-85578345.html The registration date was in 2012, and, apart from the blank line in the middle, is identical to impossible food's logo. Both use League Gothic Font.
- tslater2006 5y ago
  Good info thanks. My comment wasn't intended to be a statement of fact by me, but rather what Impossible Foods claims. The complaint is now available on courtlistener.
- Symmetry 5y ago
  That's for a trademark in the context of "exercise and fitness" though. You can have one Impossible doing that and another Impossible selling food and there's no consumer confusion so they're both fine. It's just when the fitness company started applying their existing branding to nutrition products in apparently 2018 that suddenly there was a conflict.
- Brendinooo 5y ago
  Impossible Foods absolutely does not use League Gothic. It's using Tungsten Semibold, a font by Hoefler&Co.

maneesh 5y ago

When you look at the ImpossibleHQ vs Impossible Foods logo, it's obviously, without a doubt, a complete rip off. It's the sort of lawsuit that I would expect ImpossibleHQ to put against Impossible Foods, obviously not vice versa. It seems so clearly a rip off of the logo, that it's the kind of lawsuit that I want to invest in. Like -- I want to help fund a lawsuit against Impossible foods for millions that they ripped off the logo/trademark illegally. Is there any past examples of investment/crowdfunding for a lawsuit, where the investors earn returns if a lawsuit succeeds? This feels like an interesting opportunity for grassroots crowdfunding/investment for a David vs Goliath situation.

g_p 5y ago
> Is there any past examples of investment/crowdfunding for a lawsuit, where the investors earn returns if a lawsuit succeeds? Sounds like you're describing litigation funding (a fairly established market). You'd probably want to back it by insurance to cover the investors and party bringing the action against adverse costs exposure. Litigation funding is often provided by insurers anyway as a result, as they can put up the cash, and cover the risk of costs via their insurance.
- nefitty 5y ago
  I wonder if there's a litigation betting market. I know there's prediction markets, but I'm wondering about a community dedicated to market making on any/all lawsuits.
  - dhosek 5y ago
    I can see that becoming a serious moral hazard. If a judge or juror can make money on a lawsuit that they're deciding reaching a particular verdict, then there's a very real danger that they will do so. I'm pretty sure that in the grand scheme of things we want less opportunity for this sort of corruption of the judicial process, not more.
    - nefitty 5y ago

TheGigaChad 5y ago

Vegan rats in action.

whoknowswhat11 5y ago

Link to Impossible's trademark (for nutrition - they have 18) https://trademark.trademarkia.com/impossible-nutrition-87116501.html https://trademark.trademarkia.com/impossible-nutrition-87116... This was from 2018 (important I think). Another was this: https://trademark.trademarkia.com/impossible-85578345.html https://trademark.trademarkia.com/impossible-85578345.html But the class is not a super overlap with impossible foods. Here is impossible foods mark. https://trademarks.justia.com/861/02/impossible-86102158.html https://trademarks.justia.com/861/02/impossible-86102158.htm... 2013 was the filing date here. With an english language word, the trademark protection is (generally) going to be a bit narrower (ie, specific class etc). For what it is worth, at a 10 second glance this is not the slam dunk little vs big player thing.

mint2 5y ago

Basically this just goes to show the way trademarks work is broken. One shouldn’t be able to trademark single words, or at the very least common ones.

Symmetry 5y ago
Just because a word is trademarked doesn't mean that someone else can't use, or even trademark, the same word in a different line of business. I can't call my new OS "Windows". I probably won't be able to start a line of computer monitors called "Windows" either. But if I wanted to open a line of restaurants under the "Windows" brand I'd probably be fine. Trademarks are only enforceable when there's a danger of consumer confusion.
- mint2 5y ago
  In theory yes, but when a litigious company has deeper pockets, being in the right doesn’t matter if one doesn’t have enough money to prove it. Barring that type of one common word trademark would prevent some of those or make it cheaper to defend. For instance backcountry online suing things like coffee shops called backcountry nitro coffee; outdoor safety clinics called backcountry babes that taught avalanche safety for women; and many more. One word Generic terms in any field should explicitly not be trade-marketable.

kstenerud 5y ago

OK, I see what's going on here. Impossible Foods primary arguments are: - They use the mark IMPOSSIBLE with services relating to recipes, food ingredients, and cooking information, and Impossible X does not. - Impossible X has challenged their right to use the trademark in that manner, and so they want the courts to decide with finality who has what rights. - Since Impossible X has not asserted their rights to the mark in this manner in many years, and have not pursued any business in that area, Impossible Foods wants any trade marks in relation to food to be considered abandoned (incidentally, this is why big companies pursue trademark claims so aggressively). - They also want to be awarded costs (not a likely outcome, but always good to throw in). My dry reading of this gives the impression that they're likely to prevail. If you don't protect your trademark, especially against such a high profile company and let it run for years unchallenged, you risk losing it. This is to prevent people from submarining a lawsuit by allowing a company to build massive value in a mark you own rights to, only to snatch it away from them and hold it for ransom.

computer23 5y ago

This case is not so cut and dry. It looks like ImpossibleHQ's trademarks had nothing to do with food until 2016 when they filed a trademark in the nutrition space Impossible Foods was started before 2016, so it would seem to have priority in the food space.

ncmncm 5y ago
That doesn't justify copying the logo. A million logos would work equally well for Impossible Foods without stomping on ImpossibleHQ.