4 ms·

It actually looks like they were pretty reasonable here, as they offered money for the company to help rebrand even though they were clearly infringing on their

It actually looks like they were pretty reasonable here, as they offered money for the company to help rebrand even though they were clearly infringing on their copyright. Of course, there are three sides to every story.

johnfn 9mo ago
How is a 15M lawsuit ever reasonable in a case like this?
- NewsaHackO 9mo ago
  To me, this would be the expected second step, for someone infringing on their trademark. Like if a person steals your car, then you confront them and try to strike a deal to prevent involvement of authorities. If you ignore that, I think it is reasonable to expect them to report you to the police, and you to get charged with theft.
  - johnfn 9mo ago
    [flagged]
    - kube-system 9mo ago
      No, asking a court for a large amount of damages from an LLC is not in any way similar to arson and murder.
      - johnfn 9mo ago
        You should say why that is rather than just leaving a short, dismissive comment.
        dghlsakjg 9mo ago
        I’m not GP, but I can take a crack: A case against a limited liability corporation for infringing on a trademark is not like murdering someone and burning down their house because no one ends up dead and no houses are burned down, and it is an appealable judgement made by a court based in legal precedent.
        deleted 9mo ago
        [deleted]
        kube-system 9mo ago
        1. murder and arson are crimes. 2. asking for a large amount of damages is how all lawsuits work. That doesn’t mean that amount will be awarded. 3. an LLC protects the owners personal assets from the judgement. The likely result is that they are forced to repaint the truck on their own dime, and waste a bunch of their company’s money. The worst case scenario is that Kelloggs takes the truck and the egg rolls that are in it. Nobody is dying in a fire. Nobody is paying anyone 15m dollars. Nobody is losing a house.
    - NewsaHackO 9mo ago
      I don't think they expect to actually get 15M from this suit. Honestly, it seems like they wanted to avoid the suit altogether, because of how it looks from a PR POV.
- kube-system 9mo ago
  The damages listed in a lawsuit have nothing at all to do with the reasonableness of the parties involved. By the time a lawsuit is filed you are already deep into a civil dispute, and very few civil disputes ever go to trial. Filing a lawsuit at all is the nuclear option for when all reasonableness has already broken down. You only go to court as the nuclear option after both parties reach an impasse. 15M is almost certainly just a result of mathematically adding up the damages the law provides for. That's how going to court generally works -- your lawyer will ask the court for everything the law provides for. Then the court will decide what is reasonable to actually award. Going to court is very expensive, and it is why ~99% of cases settle before going to court.
mjd 9mo ago
Trademark, not copyright. Legally they are very different.
Dylan16807 9mo ago
Clearly infringing on what? Do they have "leggo my eggo" itself trademarked? And is it really reasonable to think there's consumer confusion between a waffle and an egg roll that isn't using the word "eggo"? I would say they're clearly not infringing on any plain "eggo" trademark.
- KenoFischer 9mo ago
  > Do they have "leggo my eggo" itself trademarked? As a matter of fact, they do: https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=77021301&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=77021301&caseType=SERIAL_... The full complaint linked above has a full list of trademarks. There's also a claim for trade dress infringement, since the food truck uses the same font and red-yellow-white color scheme.
  - Dylan16807 9mo ago
    However, that particular phrase appears to be trademarked for: waffles, pancakes, french toast
    - wlonkly 9mo ago
      Skimming the complaint, Kellogg looks to be arguing it is a well-known mark,[1] and is also making a trade dress claim. [1] https://www.uspto.gov/ip-policy/trademark-policy/well-known-marks https://www.uspto.gov/ip-policy/trademark-policy/well-known-...
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
- djmips 9mo ago
  I think Lego should sue Kellogs
  - kube-system 9mo ago
    Trademarks are specific to a product/service. This is why Apple the computer company and Apples at my grocery store can coexist.

johnfn 9mo ago

How is a 15M lawsuit ever reasonable in a case like this?

NewsaHackO 9mo ago
To me, this would be the expected second step, for someone infringing on their trademark. Like if a person steals your car, then you confront them and try to strike a deal to prevent involvement of authorities. If you ignore that, I think it is reasonable to expect them to report you to the police, and you to get charged with theft.
- johnfn 9mo ago
  [flagged]
  - kube-system 9mo ago
    No, asking a court for a large amount of damages from an LLC is not in any way similar to arson and murder.
    - johnfn 9mo ago
      You should say why that is rather than just leaving a short, dismissive comment.
      - dghlsakjg 9mo ago
        I’m not GP, but I can take a crack: A case against a limited liability corporation for infringing on a trademark is not like murdering someone and burning down their house because no one ends up dead and no houses are burned down, and it is an appealable judgement made by a court based in legal precedent.
        deleted 9mo ago
        [deleted]
      - kube-system 9mo ago
        1. murder and arson are crimes. 2. asking for a large amount of damages is how all lawsuits work. That doesn’t mean that amount will be awarded. 3. an LLC protects the owners personal assets from the judgement. The likely result is that they are forced to repaint the truck on their own dime, and waste a bunch of their company’s money. The worst case scenario is that Kelloggs takes the truck and the egg rolls that are in it. Nobody is dying in a fire. Nobody is paying anyone 15m dollars. Nobody is losing a house.
  - NewsaHackO 9mo ago
    I don't think they expect to actually get 15M from this suit. Honestly, it seems like they wanted to avoid the suit altogether, because of how it looks from a PR POV.
kube-system 9mo ago
The damages listed in a lawsuit have nothing at all to do with the reasonableness of the parties involved. By the time a lawsuit is filed you are already deep into a civil dispute, and very few civil disputes ever go to trial. Filing a lawsuit at all is the nuclear option for when all reasonableness has already broken down. You only go to court as the nuclear option after both parties reach an impasse. 15M is almost certainly just a result of mathematically adding up the damages the law provides for. That's how going to court generally works -- your lawyer will ask the court for everything the law provides for. Then the court will decide what is reasonable to actually award. Going to court is very expensive, and it is why ~99% of cases settle before going to court.

mjd 9mo ago

Trademark, not copyright. Legally they are very different.

Dylan16807 9mo ago

Clearly infringing on what? Do they have "leggo my eggo" itself trademarked? And is it really reasonable to think there's consumer confusion between a waffle and an egg roll that isn't using the word "eggo"? I would say they're clearly not infringing on any plain "eggo" trademark.

KenoFischer 9mo ago
> Do they have "leggo my eggo" itself trademarked? As a matter of fact, they do: https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=77021301&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=77021301&caseType=SERIAL_... The full complaint linked above has a full list of trademarks. There's also a claim for trade dress infringement, since the food truck uses the same font and red-yellow-white color scheme.
- Dylan16807 9mo ago
  However, that particular phrase appears to be trademarked for: waffles, pancakes, french toast
  - wlonkly 9mo ago
    Skimming the complaint, Kellogg looks to be arguing it is a well-known mark,[1] and is also making a trade dress claim. [1] https://www.uspto.gov/ip-policy/trademark-policy/well-known-marks https://www.uspto.gov/ip-policy/trademark-policy/well-known-...
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
djmips 9mo ago
I think Lego should sue Kellogs
- kube-system 9mo ago
  Trademarks are specific to a product/service. This is why Apple the computer company and Apples at my grocery store can coexist.