4 ms·

>1. Similar sounding names to existing brand is trademark infringement. Here this particular entity is deliberately copying the restaurant names to mislead peop

by lovich 4y ago

>1. Similar sounding names to existing brand is trademark infringement. Here this particular entity is deliberately copying the restaurant names to mislead people into selecting them (when original restaurants are closed). Can you define that difference? Wingstop and Thighstop for instance are incredibly close and not enough to trigger regulatory enforcement. There is the side note that they are owned by the same entity, but do regulators know that for a fact before they decide no to enforce penalties for what you are claiming is trademark infringement? >2. Assumption is Unilever creates different brands with same exacting manufacturing standards, and it stands behind them (packages will follow federal labeling guidelines). It is for A/B testing of brand collaterals (name, packaging graphics, colors, copy etc.). Here obviously that is not the case. > Assumption is Unilever creates different brands with same exacting manufacturing standards... Where did this assumption come from? That's a claim without any backing as far as I am aware. Do you honestly believe they only make different brands because they are testing how the sound of the brands name affects sales? Nothing around compartmentalizing the risk of them causing some backlash by cutting corners or getting people ill, and the ability to just cut off that one brand rather than their entire product line? >It is very obvious that deception is the end goal, so really don't understand "why not" remark. It is literally the opposite to me. It feels like deception is the main goal unless they make the "Product of X Conglomerate" a larger part of the packaging than the brands label, and not the minimum size required by law, or if its legally allowed, omitted entirely from the label

achow 4y ago
Too argumentative.. but would try to answer some. > Can you define that difference? Wingstop and Thighstop for instance are incredibly close.. The author of the blog clearly identified the modus operandi. He makes a very compelling case (he obviously understand the local context, can intuit things based upon the fuzzy dataset which is result of his experiencing the system over time.. etc.). > Where did this assumption come from? (Unilever has exacting manufacturing standards) That's a claim without any backing as far as I am aware.. The knowledge of how world works and is typically built if one is curious enough. https://www.unilever.com/news/news-search/2022/shining-a-light-on-our-first-lighthouse-factory-in-india/ https://www.unilever.com/news/news-search/2022/shining-a-lig...
TheDong 4y ago
> Can you define that difference? Wingstop and Thighstop for instance are incredibly close and not enough to trigger regulatory enforcement I can define the difference clearly: "whatever a court decides" The law is intentionally fuzzy, and in the case of trademark, it's whether the names are "likely to cause consumer confusion", which is an obviously fuzzy thing that cannot be encoded in a computer or with a set of string matching rules. Which is fine, our legal system has humans in it. If the companies are doing so with the specific intent of causing consumer confusion, then it seems like the court would have a relatively easy time at showing that such an occurrence was likely.
- lovich 4y ago
  What the court decides is different than “similar sounding names”. My point was that similar sounding names are not automatically infringement because they need a court to decide that the similarity doesn’t matter. I explicitly pointed out two similar sounding restaurant names owned by the same entity because either they were assumed to be IP infringement until a court decided they were not, or courts didn’t get involved by default for similar sounding names. The whole point was to make a reductio ab absurdum argument that similarity of names did not matter in terms of IP until courts were involved, so bringing it up as a reason that ghost kitchens couldn’t make similar names a silly argument to make sans lawsuits
- ZiiS 4y ago
  In this case a court wouldn't even get involved. One of the brands needs to sue the other one.
School-Cotton 4y ago
I don’t understand your point about Wingstop and Thighstop at all. Of course a company is allowed to “infringe” on its own trademark — in quotes because that’s not actually infringement at all. How do you know for sure it wouldn’t be enforceable if a separate restaurant had been called Thighstop?
- zo1 4y ago
  If they decide not to pursue action due to infringement then I'd argue they're not really separate entities at all so why have them in the first place. In which case, they're performing some sort of fraud. These things are usually illegal in the context of tax-evasion ("oh he's my nephew and I give him a company car, and full-salary for 'consulting' once a month.")
  - mattl 4y ago
    Thighstop seems to exist because Wingstop is/was having a chicken wing shortage.
  - krsrhe 4y ago
    There is nothing wrong with one business running two brands to sell two different products.
  - salmo 4y ago
    There isn’t any fraud here. It’s all very normal corporate structure. Yum! Brands owns both, and Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, KFC, etc. The restaurants themselves are owned by franchisees who license the trademarks (and all kind of complicated buy-in and standards). Yum! Brands made ThighStop to address the wing shortage and keep the association/credibility. It’s actually weirdly transparent: just like WingStop, but thighs. I don’t know if WingStop franchisees got automatic rights to that brand or not. My guess is that it was just a way to keep them afloat. Now, the fact that WingStop has any cred is gross. I can get better wings from a mom & pop or local chain at any strip mall, or heck, a gas station than wing chains like them, BWW, etc. I guess America outside the South and Buffalo, NY doesn’t have access to wings that don’t taste like a salt lick. It’s a tragedy.
ben_w 4y ago
> do regulators know that for a fact before they decide no to enforce penalties for what you are claiming is trademark infringement? I've been told that trademark proceedings have to be initiated by the holder, and that the holder failing to do so is how certain phrases can become common names for a thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericized_trademarks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericize... But IANAL.
ABCLAW 4y ago
>do regulators know that for a fact before they decide no to enforce penalties for what you are claiming is trademark infringement? The regulator doesn't pursue trademark infringement cases. It is upon the trademark holder to defend their mark via proceedings. So WingstopCo would bring an action against ThighstopCo. In this case, since both marks are held by the same entity, there's no enforcement possible unless the holding entity an exclusive license to one of the marks to another party.
oarabbus_ 4y ago
>Wingstop and Thighstop for instance are incredibly close and not enough to trigger regulatory enforcement. There is the side note that they are owned by the same entity, but do regulators know that for a fact before they decide no to enforce penalties for what you are claiming is trademark infringement? Well, yes? Regulators would determine both are owned by the same entity, at which point there would be no enforcement penalty to apply.
- nradov 4y ago
  Regulators don't even proactively enforce trademarks in the first place. The holder is responsible for bringing an action.
  - oarabbus_ 4y ago
    Well there you go.
awillen 4y ago
> There is the side note that they are owned by the same entity, but do regulators know that for a fact before they decide no to enforce penalties for what you are claiming is trademark infringement? Yes. Yes they do. Absolutely, 100%, regulators know that Wingstop and Thighstop are owned by the same entity. They know this from regulatory and administrative filings, and they know this from the advertising that could not possibly be more clear that these are the same company. Here, Rick Ross can explain it to you in no uncertain terms: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTx4YuMa3cQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTx4YuMa3cQ

by lovich 4y ago

achow 4y ago

Too argumentative.. but would try to answer some. > Can you define that difference? Wingstop and Thighstop for instance are incredibly close.. The author of the blog clearly identified the modus operandi. He makes a very compelling case (he obviously understand the local context, can intuit things based upon the fuzzy dataset which is result of his experiencing the system over time.. etc.). > Where did this assumption come from? (Unilever has exacting manufacturing standards) That's a claim without any backing as far as I am aware.. The knowledge of how world works and is typically built if one is curious enough. https://www.unilever.com/news/news-search/2022/shining-a-light-on-our-first-lighthouse-factory-in-india/ https://www.unilever.com/news/news-search/2022/shining-a-lig...

TheDong 4y ago

> Can you define that difference? Wingstop and Thighstop for instance are incredibly close and not enough to trigger regulatory enforcement I can define the difference clearly: "whatever a court decides" The law is intentionally fuzzy, and in the case of trademark, it's whether the names are "likely to cause consumer confusion", which is an obviously fuzzy thing that cannot be encoded in a computer or with a set of string matching rules. Which is fine, our legal system has humans in it. If the companies are doing so with the specific intent of causing consumer confusion, then it seems like the court would have a relatively easy time at showing that such an occurrence was likely.

lovich 4y ago
What the court decides is different than “similar sounding names”. My point was that similar sounding names are not automatically infringement because they need a court to decide that the similarity doesn’t matter. I explicitly pointed out two similar sounding restaurant names owned by the same entity because either they were assumed to be IP infringement until a court decided they were not, or courts didn’t get involved by default for similar sounding names. The whole point was to make a reductio ab absurdum argument that similarity of names did not matter in terms of IP until courts were involved, so bringing it up as a reason that ghost kitchens couldn’t make similar names a silly argument to make sans lawsuits
ZiiS 4y ago
In this case a court wouldn't even get involved. One of the brands needs to sue the other one.

School-Cotton 4y ago

I don’t understand your point about Wingstop and Thighstop at all. Of course a company is allowed to “infringe” on its own trademark — in quotes because that’s not actually infringement at all. How do you know for sure it wouldn’t be enforceable if a separate restaurant had been called Thighstop?

zo1 4y ago
If they decide not to pursue action due to infringement then I'd argue they're not really separate entities at all so why have them in the first place. In which case, they're performing some sort of fraud. These things are usually illegal in the context of tax-evasion ("oh he's my nephew and I give him a company car, and full-salary for 'consulting' once a month.")
- mattl 4y ago
  Thighstop seems to exist because Wingstop is/was having a chicken wing shortage.
- krsrhe 4y ago
  There is nothing wrong with one business running two brands to sell two different products.
- salmo 4y ago
  There isn’t any fraud here. It’s all very normal corporate structure. Yum! Brands owns both, and Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, KFC, etc. The restaurants themselves are owned by franchisees who license the trademarks (and all kind of complicated buy-in and standards). Yum! Brands made ThighStop to address the wing shortage and keep the association/credibility. It’s actually weirdly transparent: just like WingStop, but thighs. I don’t know if WingStop franchisees got automatic rights to that brand or not. My guess is that it was just a way to keep them afloat. Now, the fact that WingStop has any cred is gross. I can get better wings from a mom & pop or local chain at any strip mall, or heck, a gas station than wing chains like them, BWW, etc. I guess America outside the South and Buffalo, NY doesn’t have access to wings that don’t taste like a salt lick. It’s a tragedy.

ben_w 4y ago

> do regulators know that for a fact before they decide no to enforce penalties for what you are claiming is trademark infringement? I've been told that trademark proceedings have to be initiated by the holder, and that the holder failing to do so is how certain phrases can become common names for a thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericized_trademarks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericize... But IANAL.

ABCLAW 4y ago

>do regulators know that for a fact before they decide no to enforce penalties for what you are claiming is trademark infringement? The regulator doesn't pursue trademark infringement cases. It is upon the trademark holder to defend their mark via proceedings. So WingstopCo would bring an action against ThighstopCo. In this case, since both marks are held by the same entity, there's no enforcement possible unless the holding entity an exclusive license to one of the marks to another party.

oarabbus_ 4y ago

>Wingstop and Thighstop for instance are incredibly close and not enough to trigger regulatory enforcement. There is the side note that they are owned by the same entity, but do regulators know that for a fact before they decide no to enforce penalties for what you are claiming is trademark infringement? Well, yes? Regulators would determine both are owned by the same entity, at which point there would be no enforcement penalty to apply.

nradov 4y ago
Regulators don't even proactively enforce trademarks in the first place. The holder is responsible for bringing an action.
- oarabbus_ 4y ago
  Well there you go.

awillen 4y ago

> There is the side note that they are owned by the same entity, but do regulators know that for a fact before they decide no to enforce penalties for what you are claiming is trademark infringement? Yes. Yes they do. Absolutely, 100%, regulators know that Wingstop and Thighstop are owned by the same entity. They know this from regulatory and administrative filings, and they know this from the advertising that could not possibly be more clear that these are the same company. Here, Rick Ross can explain it to you in no uncertain terms: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTx4YuMa3cQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTx4YuMa3cQ