5 ms·

It's US law. If Kellogg doesn't defend their trademark, they lose it. An amicable middle ground might be for Kellogg to let the business purchase rights for $

by echelon 9mo ago

It's US law. If Kellogg doesn't defend their trademark, they lose it. An amicable middle ground might be for Kellogg to let the business purchase rights for $1, but if that happened it would open up a flood of this. Kellogg has so much money in that brand recognition, they'd lose far more than $15 million if it became a generic slogan. The $15 million is a token amount to get the small business to abandon its use. Kellogg doesn't want to litigate. They tried several times not to litigate. I'm sure Kellogg would be happy to pay the business more than the cost of repainting their truck, buying some marketing materials, pay for the trouble, etc. It's easy good will press for Kellogg and the business gets a funny story and their own marketing anecdote. It's cheaper than litigation, too.

izacus 9mo ago
Did Kellogg actual win according to this supposed law you cite? Did they prove that their trademark was used? Or are you blindly guessing?
- dghlsakjg 9mo ago
  The trial is scheduled for the future. It sounds like you are blindly guessing about the case, and pretty unfamiliar with the law. Heres the case details: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70447787/kellogg-north-america-company-llc-v-leggo-my-eggroll-ohio-llc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70447787/kellogg-north-... This isn't a "supposed law" or some new interpretation, this is pretty well established part of trademark law dating back to the 1800s in the US. The flip side of the law is that you have to be active in defending and using your trademark if you want to keep it. It prevents the sort of patent troll abuses we see in that system. If "Leggo my Eggo" was last used years ago by Kellogs, and they haven't used it or defended it or other "Eggo" related trademarks since then, a court is much more likely to allow the use by other businesses, even if Kellog's still hold the registered trademark. Kellog's choices here are to risk losing or weakening the trademark as a whole, or to sue since the other party has rejected other solutions.
  - izacus 9mo ago
    [flagged]
    - dghlsakjg 9mo ago
      This tone is unnecessary, unhelpful and against the spirit and rules of the site. It also doesn’t advance the conversation. If you disagree, that’s fine, but refrain from using invalid techniques like ad hominem attacks and straw men arguments. Edit: looked at your comment history and realized I’m not going to get anywhere with this. This is just how you behave when presented with information.
      - izacus 9mo ago
        Rules of this site also ask for argumentation that goes beyond "someone sued so they must be right". You made a claim of trademark infringement when in reality no such thing was actually proven. You just automatically assumed the big corp was right based on something that even the lawyers don't yet agree on. I'm sorry if me calling you out on your bullshit makes you angry to the point where you felt the need to sift through my posts for a personal attack.
    - hn_acc1 9mo ago
      "Law you heard about"??? Dude, how ignorant are you? Even in engineering school we were taught about trademark law and such.
      - izacus 9mo ago
        If you were taught that law you were also taught that every use of a given word doesn't immediately mean infringement if it doesn't present a danger of confusion.
8note 9mo ago
this isnt a great law though. a non competing pun ahould have similar carve outs to fair use, to save both the trademark owner, jokester, and courts a bunch of time and money.
- browningstreet 9mo ago
  Not relevant to those who have to act on the law as it is today.
- dghlsakjg 9mo ago
  There are carveouts for things like parody and fair use, but running a restaurant that uses wordplay of a very specific marketing phrase, the same colors and fonts, and branding is the issue. If you go look at pictures of the truck, the business branding, and other things it is very clear why Kellog’s has a good argument that their trademark is being used in a way that could damage the brand, or confuse consumers.
- kube-system 9mo ago
  If you look at the court filings linked elsewhere in this thread, it isn't as simple as just a slogan. They copied the trade dress to the point that the truck looks like a Kelloggs waffle box. Trademark law does have carveouts for people that are selling different products, doing parody, etc. But that isn't what this is.

by echelon 9mo ago

izacus 9mo ago

Did Kellogg actual win according to this supposed law you cite? Did they prove that their trademark was used? Or are you blindly guessing?

dghlsakjg 9mo ago
The trial is scheduled for the future. It sounds like you are blindly guessing about the case, and pretty unfamiliar with the law. Heres the case details: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70447787/kellogg-north-america-company-llc-v-leggo-my-eggroll-ohio-llc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70447787/kellogg-north-... This isn't a "supposed law" or some new interpretation, this is pretty well established part of trademark law dating back to the 1800s in the US. The flip side of the law is that you have to be active in defending and using your trademark if you want to keep it. It prevents the sort of patent troll abuses we see in that system. If "Leggo my Eggo" was last used years ago by Kellogs, and they haven't used it or defended it or other "Eggo" related trademarks since then, a court is much more likely to allow the use by other businesses, even if Kellog's still hold the registered trademark. Kellog's choices here are to risk losing or weakening the trademark as a whole, or to sue since the other party has rejected other solutions.
- izacus 9mo ago
  [flagged]
  - dghlsakjg 9mo ago
    This tone is unnecessary, unhelpful and against the spirit and rules of the site. It also doesn’t advance the conversation. If you disagree, that’s fine, but refrain from using invalid techniques like ad hominem attacks and straw men arguments. Edit: looked at your comment history and realized I’m not going to get anywhere with this. This is just how you behave when presented with information.
    - izacus 9mo ago
      Rules of this site also ask for argumentation that goes beyond "someone sued so they must be right". You made a claim of trademark infringement when in reality no such thing was actually proven. You just automatically assumed the big corp was right based on something that even the lawyers don't yet agree on. I'm sorry if me calling you out on your bullshit makes you angry to the point where you felt the need to sift through my posts for a personal attack.
  - hn_acc1 9mo ago
    "Law you heard about"??? Dude, how ignorant are you? Even in engineering school we were taught about trademark law and such.
    - izacus 9mo ago
      If you were taught that law you were also taught that every use of a given word doesn't immediately mean infringement if it doesn't present a danger of confusion.

8note 9mo ago

this isnt a great law though. a non competing pun ahould have similar carve outs to fair use, to save both the trademark owner, jokester, and courts a bunch of time and money.

browningstreet 9mo ago
Not relevant to those who have to act on the law as it is today.
dghlsakjg 9mo ago
There are carveouts for things like parody and fair use, but running a restaurant that uses wordplay of a very specific marketing phrase, the same colors and fonts, and branding is the issue. If you go look at pictures of the truck, the business branding, and other things it is very clear why Kellog’s has a good argument that their trademark is being used in a way that could damage the brand, or confuse consumers.
kube-system 9mo ago
If you look at the court filings linked elsewhere in this thread, it isn't as simple as just a slogan. They copied the trade dress to the point that the truck looks like a Kelloggs waffle box. Trademark law does have carveouts for people that are selling different products, doing parody, etc. But that isn't what this is.