3 ms·

The stylistic 'E' actually looks nothing alike if you look at the picture in the complaint linked elsewhere in the thread[0]. Just about the only similarity is

The stylistic 'E' actually looks nothing alike if you look at the picture in the complaint linked elsewhere in the thread[0]. Just about the only similarity is that it's vaguely cursive red with white outline. The 'E' is probably the most obviously different part. It's immediately obvious to anyone with a functioning brain that it's a parody, so only a corporate lawyer could be so dishonest as to write that it's "likely to deceive and cause confusion, mistake, or deception among consumers or potential consumers as to the source of origin of Defendant’s goods and services and the sponsorship or endorsement of those goods and services by Kellogg". Their truck screams "this does not follow modern 'corporate' branding/style guides, so is obviously not approved or associated with a multinational company like Kellogg." Quite interesting to see the product placement examples in the document though as evidence their "renown". [0] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ohnd.317820/gov.uscourts.ohnd.317820.1.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ohnd.31...

dghlsakjg 9mo ago
Are you looking at the Eggo logo in that filing from the 30s? If you look at the modern Eggo logo shown later in the filing compared to the egg roll trucks usage of it in “L’Eggo my eggroll” it is clearly so similar that it is hard to distinguish which “L’Eggo” belongs to the truck if you isolate them. Parody and fair use are also significantly weakened in law when the use is commercial and without social commentary. Protected parody needs to be more than “I copied your branding style for my business”. Again I’m not arguing that the law is moral or immoral, just that Kellog’s has a strong claim here under the law given that the branding as a whole is clearly copied from the Eggo brand, and that there is no evidence here that the food truck is trying to make fair use for the purposes of free speech, commentary or parody. Is anyone going to confuse a waffle with an eggroll? No. But it is perfectly reasonable to think that the food truck is somehow associated with the Eggo food brand. Large corporations do stuff like operate offshoots and pop ups in adjacent niches. Look to IHOP’s brief marketing stunt rebrand to IHOB for an example.
- ndriscoll 9mo ago
  I'm looking at all of what's in that document. The 'E' is literally the most dissimilar letter. It's very obviously distinct, and even more obviously distinct when isolated. In any case, they might legally prevail, but let's not kid ourselves: no one is going to be confused. The lawyer who wrote that is not just immoral in some abstract sense; they are concretely a disingenuous liar.
  - wilg 9mo ago
    Arguing the "E" in the "Eggo" trademark and the "E" on the egg roll truck are so distinct that anyone arguing it must be lying is not a reasonable position.
    - ndriscoll 9mo ago
      My commentary on the 'E' is a response to that being specifically called out as the same in an earlier comment when it's specifically not the same if you actually look at it. The bit about the lawyer lying is what I quoted from the court document: that it's "likely to deceive and cause confusion, mistake, or deception among consumers or potential consumers" about whether this is endorsed or associated with Kellogg. And yes let's not kid ourselves, that is a lie. No one including the lawyer thinks that's true. Saying things that you obviously think are untrue is lying, even if you do it professionally.
      - wilg 9mo ago
        I agree you had a reason for what you said about the "E", I'm taking issue with what you said. No, speaking on someone else's behalf, as lawyers are obligate to do is not lying. They are representing their client's position. You also cannot "lie" about an opinion about what might confuse other people.
        Dylan16807 9mo ago
        > They are representing their client's position. I guess, but it's still distasteful, especially when it's a corporation saying it and the corporation is incentivized to exaggerate/mislead to an extreme. > You also cannot "lie" about an opinion about what might confuse other people. What are you talking about? Of course you can lie about your opinion. And the opinion involving other people doesn't change that. I'll do it right now: I think basically nobody likes ice cream, they're all faking it to fit in.

dghlsakjg 9mo ago

Are you looking at the Eggo logo in that filing from the 30s? If you look at the modern Eggo logo shown later in the filing compared to the egg roll trucks usage of it in “L’Eggo my eggroll” it is clearly so similar that it is hard to distinguish which “L’Eggo” belongs to the truck if you isolate them. Parody and fair use are also significantly weakened in law when the use is commercial and without social commentary. Protected parody needs to be more than “I copied your branding style for my business”. Again I’m not arguing that the law is moral or immoral, just that Kellog’s has a strong claim here under the law given that the branding as a whole is clearly copied from the Eggo brand, and that there is no evidence here that the food truck is trying to make fair use for the purposes of free speech, commentary or parody. Is anyone going to confuse a waffle with an eggroll? No. But it is perfectly reasonable to think that the food truck is somehow associated with the Eggo food brand. Large corporations do stuff like operate offshoots and pop ups in adjacent niches. Look to IHOP’s brief marketing stunt rebrand to IHOB for an example.

ndriscoll 9mo ago
I'm looking at all of what's in that document. The 'E' is literally the most dissimilar letter. It's very obviously distinct, and even more obviously distinct when isolated. In any case, they might legally prevail, but let's not kid ourselves: no one is going to be confused. The lawyer who wrote that is not just immoral in some abstract sense; they are concretely a disingenuous liar.
- wilg 9mo ago
  Arguing the "E" in the "Eggo" trademark and the "E" on the egg roll truck are so distinct that anyone arguing it must be lying is not a reasonable position.
  - ndriscoll 9mo ago
    My commentary on the 'E' is a response to that being specifically called out as the same in an earlier comment when it's specifically not the same if you actually look at it. The bit about the lawyer lying is what I quoted from the court document: that it's "likely to deceive and cause confusion, mistake, or deception among consumers or potential consumers" about whether this is endorsed or associated with Kellogg. And yes let's not kid ourselves, that is a lie. No one including the lawyer thinks that's true. Saying things that you obviously think are untrue is lying, even if you do it professionally.
    - wilg 9mo ago
      I agree you had a reason for what you said about the "E", I'm taking issue with what you said. No, speaking on someone else's behalf, as lawyers are obligate to do is not lying. They are representing their client's position. You also cannot "lie" about an opinion about what might confuse other people.
      - Dylan16807 9mo ago
        > They are representing their client's position. I guess, but it's still distasteful, especially when it's a corporation saying it and the corporation is incentivized to exaggerate/mislead to an extreme. > You also cannot "lie" about an opinion about what might confuse other people. What are you talking about? Of course you can lie about your opinion. And the opinion involving other people doesn't change that. I'll do it right now: I think basically nobody likes ice cream, they're all faking it to fit in.