4 ms·

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 thei

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.
- idopmstuff 4y ago
  It seems very plausible to me that calling a line of cereal "OK Go!" that's designed to be eaten on the go and has no other references to the band would not be confusing to the vast majority of people because they had a business relationship >10 years ago. But the upside about this lawsuit is it will tell us very clearly if you're correct or not.
  - SOLAR_FIELDS 4y ago
    It’s also worth mentioning that while OK Go while makes catchy tunes, they aren’t your typical starving artist stick it to the man band being victimized by BigCorp. They’ve always been quite in line with marketing, advertising and working with corporations. This Chevrolet ad/OK Go music video is from a decade ago: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MejbOFk7H6c https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MejbOFk7H6c Note: I don’t dislike OK Go at all, don’t get me wrong, I think they make some of the most creative music videos I have ever seen.
kstenerud 4y ago
The article does start out with slanted language to give a false impression, although most of that is in the incredibly misleading quotes by OK Go band members. However, even your own retelling is misleading in the other direction, leaving the impression that OK Go is keeping this hanging over the poor company's head: 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. But if you look later in the article, you see that this whole thing came to a head only 1 week after their last failed negotiation attempt: But the food company says OK Go rejected that offer last week and made no counter-proposal, leaving Post with no choice but to file a lawsuit. Citing a “clear threat of potential litigation" So there's no real fire here in either direction; in fact there's no actual story at all. This is just standard procedure that you'd expect to see in any trade mark dispute, done in a regular orderly fashion (hyperbolic PR sound bites notwithstanding).

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.

idopmstuff 4y ago
It seems very plausible to me that calling a line of cereal "OK Go!" that's designed to be eaten on the go and has no other references to the band would not be confusing to the vast majority of people because they had a business relationship >10 years ago. But the upside about this lawsuit is it will tell us very clearly if you're correct or not.
- SOLAR_FIELDS 4y ago
  It’s also worth mentioning that while OK Go while makes catchy tunes, they aren’t your typical starving artist stick it to the man band being victimized by BigCorp. They’ve always been quite in line with marketing, advertising and working with corporations. This Chevrolet ad/OK Go music video is from a decade ago: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MejbOFk7H6c https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MejbOFk7H6c Note: I don’t dislike OK Go at all, don’t get me wrong, I think they make some of the most creative music videos I have ever seen.

kstenerud 4y ago

The article does start out with slanted language to give a false impression, although most of that is in the incredibly misleading quotes by OK Go band members. However, even your own retelling is misleading in the other direction, leaving the impression that OK Go is keeping this hanging over the poor company's head: 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. But if you look later in the article, you see that this whole thing came to a head only 1 week after their last failed negotiation attempt: But the food company says OK Go rejected that offer last week and made no counter-proposal, leaving Post with no choice but to file a lawsuit. Citing a “clear threat of potential litigation" So there's no real fire here in either direction; in fact there's no actual story at all. This is just standard procedure that you'd expect to see in any trade mark dispute, done in a regular orderly fashion (hyperbolic PR sound bites notwithstanding).