4 ms·

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

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!
- jeremyjh 5y ago
  And yet that is not the story we were told in the SP. We were told a lie.
jyxent 5y ago
Were there actually any cases of confusion? Impossible Food's filing states: Impossible X also referenced, without providing details, “several apparent instances of actual confusion.” Unless there are more I'm missed, Impossible X's closest trademark covers nutritional supplements. They are arguing that allowing Impossible Foods to have a trademark on the following would cause confusion: "Providing information about recipes, ingredients and cooking information; providing an online computer database to consumers eaturing information about recipes, ingredients and cooking information". I don't really see any overlap.
joelrunyon 5y ago
Respectfully. You may want to rewrite this.
- Brendinooo 5y ago
  > On November 10, 2020, over five years after Impossible Foods commenced use of its IMPOSSIBLE mark, Impossible X, through its counsel, sent a demand letter to Impossible Foods. Could you share the letter you sent to them? It might help us understand all of this better.
- ramblinrose 5y ago
  Why do you say that? In my comment I'm rooting for you. I did say that you should have mentioned this is a counter-suit to your own suit, and I stand by that. Why omit that information? Or is that a misunderstanding?
jeremyjh 5y ago
Its lying, is what it is.
elif 5y ago
at the hazard of siding with bullying megacorps... isn't the public interest primarily in having a consistent definition of "impossible?" One which has been clearly meme'd into our culture already?

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!
jeremyjh 5y ago
And yet that is not the story we were told in the SP. We were told a lie.

jyxent 5y ago

Were there actually any cases of confusion? Impossible Food's filing states: Impossible X also referenced, without providing details, “several apparent instances of actual confusion.” Unless there are more I'm missed, Impossible X's closest trademark covers nutritional supplements. They are arguing that allowing Impossible Foods to have a trademark on the following would cause confusion: "Providing information about recipes, ingredients and cooking information; providing an online computer database to consumers eaturing information about recipes, ingredients and cooking information". I don't really see any overlap.

joelrunyon 5y ago

Respectfully. You may want to rewrite this.

Brendinooo 5y ago
> On November 10, 2020, over five years after Impossible Foods commenced use of its IMPOSSIBLE mark, Impossible X, through its counsel, sent a demand letter to Impossible Foods. Could you share the letter you sent to them? It might help us understand all of this better.
ramblinrose 5y ago
Why do you say that? In my comment I'm rooting for you. I did say that you should have mentioned this is a counter-suit to your own suit, and I stand by that. Why omit that information? Or is that a misunderstanding?

jeremyjh 5y ago

Its lying, is what it is.

elif 5y ago

at the hazard of siding with bullying megacorps... isn't the public interest primarily in having a consistent definition of "impossible?" One which has been clearly meme'd into our culture already?