5 ms·

Band OK Go Sued by Post Foods Over “OK Go!” Cereal Brand

25 points by lightlyused 4y ago

BuckyBeaver 4y ago
[flagged]
schiffern 4y ago
https://archive.is/FiELg https://archive.is/FiELg
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
sitkack 4y ago
> Post will be unfairly forced to continue investing in its new OK GO! brand while under the constant threat of unfounded future litigation by defendants,” the cereal company wrote in its lawsuit. Making Kafka proud! > And he made particular mention that the band had even previously worked with Post itself, releasing a series of promotional videos for Honey Bunches of Oats back in 2011. This is not going to end well for Post. They had a previous business relationship, and then they proactively sue the band to use their name. If they didn't have a previous relationship, it could be argued that they could file with the court that the two were distinct enough that each could use "Ok Go". But now they are kinda fsckd.
idopmstuff 4y ago
The headline certainly makes Post sound bad, but the article makes them seem much more reasonable. Post was planning to release some on-the-go versions of their cereals under a brand called "OK GO!" This seems like a pretty reasonable thing to do. I certainly don't feel like they chose that name for the purpose of somehow confusing consumers into thinking their cereal was related to the band (nor can I imagine anyone accidentally making that mistake). OK Go apparently threatened to sue Post ("Post said OK Go had been quietly threatening to sue for months, claiming that the company had infringed the trademark rights to the band’s name by launching the new on-the-go packages earlier this month.), but didn't actually do so. Post filed a lawsuit that didn't request any kind of damages, just preemptively asked the court to rule on whether their new cereal brand infringed on the band's trademark ("Post is seeking what’s known as a “declaratory judgment,” meaning a ruling by a judge that says the company did nothing wrong.). That seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do - there's a dispute over whether Post can use the name, and Post is just trying to get clarity on whether it's okay or not from the court.
- bsder 4y ago
  It's also perfectly reasonable for "Ok Go" the band to threaten to sue--especially if they were doing it quietly. If you don't defend your trademark, you can lose it. "Jack Daniel’s Cease-and-Desist Letter Goes Viral for Being Exceedingly Polite" https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/jack_daniels_cease-and-desist_letter_goes_viral_for_being_exceeedingly_poli https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/jack_daniels_cease-a...
  - crabbycarrot 4y ago
    Seems more like they were "quietly threatening" because they realize "ok go" is such a generic term that following through is likely to fail.
  - idopmstuff 4y ago
    Sure - up until the point that OK Go got publicly indignant about the lawsuit, everyone acted reasonable here. One party had a problem with an action another party took, so they communicated about the problem to the other party. The two parties weren't able to come to an agreement, so the other party asked for a court to make a decision. Not really much of a story, I think.
  - valleyer 4y ago
    I see this "if you don't defend your trademark, you lose it" trope a lot on the Web these days, generally with the implication that the trademark holder has no option other than to engage in legal threats or action. Couldn't the trademark holder in these situations simply license the mark to the other side, for some nominal fee? Same for the Jack Daniels case. The book cover is probably fair use through parody, but even so, Daniels could simply license it to the author and request that the next printing have "the cover design is a trademark of Jack Daniels Properties, Inc.".
- sitkack 4y ago
  They had a business relationship in 2011, they can't just use the phrase now and claim it is generic.
michaelteter 4y ago
Post did not, as the band claims, “steal” the name of the band. Ok go! is a simple, fairly generic expression. At some point in most kids’ lives, they have played games of contest where someone would yell, Ok Go!” If anything, this expression resonates more with kid-focused products like cereal than with a band for non-children. An agreement from both parties where the use of the name is fair for each seems reasonable, however. And in the case of a goliath vs a little band, the bigger should contribute more (all) to the legal costs as an offer of goodwill.

25 points by lightlyused 4y ago

BuckyBeaver 4y ago

[flagged]

schiffern 4y ago

https://archive.is/FiELg https://archive.is/FiELg

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

sitkack 4y ago

> Post will be unfairly forced to continue investing in its new OK GO! brand while under the constant threat of unfounded future litigation by defendants,” the cereal company wrote in its lawsuit. Making Kafka proud! > And he made particular mention that the band had even previously worked with Post itself, releasing a series of promotional videos for Honey Bunches of Oats back in 2011. This is not going to end well for Post. They had a previous business relationship, and then they proactively sue the band to use their name. If they didn't have a previous relationship, it could be argued that they could file with the court that the two were distinct enough that each could use "Ok Go". But now they are kinda fsckd.

idopmstuff 4y ago

The headline certainly makes Post sound bad, but the article makes them seem much more reasonable. Post was planning to release some on-the-go versions of their cereals under a brand called "OK GO!" This seems like a pretty reasonable thing to do. I certainly don't feel like they chose that name for the purpose of somehow confusing consumers into thinking their cereal was related to the band (nor can I imagine anyone accidentally making that mistake). OK Go apparently threatened to sue Post ("Post said OK Go had been quietly threatening to sue for months, claiming that the company had infringed the trademark rights to the band’s name by launching the new on-the-go packages earlier this month.), but didn't actually do so. Post filed a lawsuit that didn't request any kind of damages, just preemptively asked the court to rule on whether their new cereal brand infringed on the band's trademark ("Post is seeking what’s known as a “declaratory judgment,” meaning a ruling by a judge that says the company did nothing wrong.). That seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do - there's a dispute over whether Post can use the name, and Post is just trying to get clarity on whether it's okay or not from the court.

bsder 4y ago
It's also perfectly reasonable for "Ok Go" the band to threaten to sue--especially if they were doing it quietly. If you don't defend your trademark, you can lose it. "Jack Daniel’s Cease-and-Desist Letter Goes Viral for Being Exceedingly Polite" https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/jack_daniels_cease-and-desist_letter_goes_viral_for_being_exceeedingly_poli https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/jack_daniels_cease-a...
- crabbycarrot 4y ago
  Seems more like they were "quietly threatening" because they realize "ok go" is such a generic term that following through is likely to fail.
- idopmstuff 4y ago
  Sure - up until the point that OK Go got publicly indignant about the lawsuit, everyone acted reasonable here. One party had a problem with an action another party took, so they communicated about the problem to the other party. The two parties weren't able to come to an agreement, so the other party asked for a court to make a decision. Not really much of a story, I think.
- valleyer 4y ago
  I see this "if you don't defend your trademark, you lose it" trope a lot on the Web these days, generally with the implication that the trademark holder has no option other than to engage in legal threats or action. Couldn't the trademark holder in these situations simply license the mark to the other side, for some nominal fee? Same for the Jack Daniels case. The book cover is probably fair use through parody, but even so, Daniels could simply license it to the author and request that the next printing have "the cover design is a trademark of Jack Daniels Properties, Inc.".
sitkack 4y ago
They had a business relationship in 2011, they can't just use the phrase now and claim it is generic.

michaelteter 4y ago

Post did not, as the band claims, “steal” the name of the band. Ok go! is a simple, fairly generic expression. At some point in most kids’ lives, they have played games of contest where someone would yell, Ok Go!” If anything, this expression resonates more with kid-focused products like cereal than with a band for non-children. An agreement from both parties where the use of the name is fair for each seems reasonable, however. And in the case of a goliath vs a little band, the bigger should contribute more (all) to the legal costs as an offer of goodwill.