Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners • Hacker News Board

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#101

Post by technobabbler » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 7:05 PM UTC

Mordisquitos wrote: post #39

This very much reinforces my scepticism and distrust towards this trend of branded so-called "meat-substitutes" and "plant-based cheeses" etc. I am not a vegetarian or a vegan but, if I were, I would simply eat vegetables, legumes, pasta, rice, bread, fruits, nuts, you name it. It's not so hard, it's just normal food that has always existed and has always been a part of my diet anyway. People have eaten non-meat prod…

Just ignore all their change-the-world marketing hogwash. The fake meats and cheeses are still occasionally useful, just because they're convenient and somewhat tasty, even if they don't taste like the real deal.

"Edible food-like substances" (to steal a term from Michael Pollan) have their place in a society all too obsessed with convenience and time efficiency. I don't think they should ever be a replacement for whole foods and basic staples, but they are a nice and easy way to add flavor to an otherwise bland vegan meal.

Yes, whole foods are healthier, and you can make a nutritionally balanced, delicious vegan meal out of basic grains and legumes and greens and whatnot... but it's a hell lot of work, especially because most of that stuff tastes like nothing.

For omnivores, adding meat to just about anything helps a lot with flavor, between the meat itself and the juices/fats flowing from it. But adding tofu or beans doesn't really add much flavor beyond a little bit of umami. You really have to season or sauce the hell out of every meal to make it taste good. And after a while, everything tastes kinda same-y... more nutritional yeast, more soy sauce, more curry, some generic beige protein, blah blah.

As someone who went vegan starting with whole foods yet never becoming a good enough cook, the fake stuff is in fact a really nice way to change up otherwise boring meals after a few years.

They're still made of grains and legumes and such, but the seasoning is done by Someone Else™ who's much better at it. Yeah, it's less healthy, but...

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#102

Post by boston_clone » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 7:08 PM UTC

KSteffensen wrote: post #98

boston_clone wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the rub, though - we know that vegetarian (including vegan) diets are nutritionally complete and applicable at virtually all stages of life [0], yet people make choices that result in hundreds of billions of animals being slaughtered each year. The cognitive dissonance that accompanies eating meat is extraordinarily pervasive [1]. 0. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19562864/ 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ps…

Why is there an ethical problem in slaughtering an animal for meat if that animal has been raised in good conditions and the actual killing happens with a minimum of pain and fear for the animal? I get why foie gras is problematic, but I don't see the problem in a leg of lamb.

> Why is there an ethical problem in slaughtering

In short, I think killing another living being that experiences suffering is wrong.

There needs to be at least a base agreement on some ethics before diving into an ethical debate, and if you don't see a problem with needlessly killing animals, then this exchange will be worthless.

Extend the reasoning of how we know it's wrong to raise and kill a human for our own consumption to animals, and we arrive at veganism. Please see my second citation in the parent comment for a better overview.

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#103

Post by kaycebasques » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 7:10 PM UTC

SllX wrote: post #86

kaycebasques wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like you're strawmanning and radicalizing our conversation here a bit by focusing on radical vegan moralists. As a vegan of 2 years I can tell you that a supermajority of the vegans I know would not endorse *legally* reshaping anyone's cuisine. The radical segment of any social movement is usually the minority. Your argumentation here seems similar to completely denouncing Christianity, Political Party XYZ,…

Note that I gave no indication that they were more than a fringe and pointed out that they were not well representative of vegans as a whole. Radicals are by definition the fringe and don’t need additional qualifiers, particularly in a sentence that was loaded with them (vegan moralists are also not representative of vegans; many vegans are vegan for pure dietary reasons or personal preference). My real point was thi…

> Note that I gave no indication that they were more than a fringe

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you but your phrasing in the quote below seems to imply that most vegans are secretly aligned with or could be persuaded into become the radical moralists you mention earlier:

> Not all vegans share that view but often independently come very close to it or could still be swayed into a more radical world view

It's just strange to me that you're talking about radicalizing while seemingly using radicalizing debating tactics yourself. I'm sorry if that comes off as disrespectful or rude but that's the crux of my issue with your comment.

Edit: But I should also mention and acknowledge that I did read past the first paragraph in your original comment

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#104

Post by jjcon » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 7:15 PM UTC

kaycebasques wrote: post #16

As a vegan myself this is very unfortunate because we are already easy targets and subject to a lot of prejudice. Impossible Meat bullying a small company might unleash a backlash of anti-vegan sentiment that can take on a life of its own. Make no mistake it has been there all along. Go back to other discussions about veganism here on HN and you will see the common anti-vegan memes. But when you're one of the leading…

As someone who eats a primarily vegan diet I find the vegan community to be insufferably toxic. I'm not talking about individuals but the community itself is just one big dick measuring contest about who is 'more vegan' and suffers more due to their devotion. I don't fault others for seeing how gross the community can be.

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#105

Post by Klonoar » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 7:15 PM UTC

Mordisquitos wrote: post #39

This very much reinforces my scepticism and distrust towards this trend of branded so-called "meat-substitutes" and "plant-based cheeses" etc. I am not a vegetarian or a vegan but, if I were, I would simply eat vegetables, legumes, pasta, rice, bread, fruits, nuts, you name it. It's not so hard, it's just normal food that has always existed and has always been a part of my diet anyway. People have eaten non-meat prod…

Meh, let’s not conflate the plant based cheese side of things with the meat substitute market.

A decent quality plant based cheese is closer in texture to hummus and is literally, mostly, ground up nuts - you can make it at home in your blender if you want to.

If you’re talking processed American cheese style… that game is probably lost the minute you choose to eat processed American cheese.

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#106

Post by Ensorceled » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 7:18 PM UTC

kaycebasques wrote: post #90

Ensorceled wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Go back to other discussions about veganism here on HN and you will see the common anti-vegan memes. You will also see a lot of outlandish claims about veganism, human diet and health and, food in general which is generally where the backlash starts. I've seen claims like "humans have evolved to be vegan", "beef only has vitamin b12 because of b12 supplements", "if you eat properly, your body will generate it's own…

I agree that some vegans also make outlandish claims but I think it's taking it too far to say that this is "generally where the backlash starts", because that implies that it's our fault / we caused it. There are a lot of vested interests that have purely selfish motives for attacking veganism and would do it regardless of any outlandish claims on the part of vegans.

> I agree that some vegans also make outlandish claims but I think it's taking it too far to say that this is "generally where the backlash starts", because that implies that it's our fault / we caused it.

Sorry, if someone makes dangerous claims like "you'll generate your own b12 after switching to a whole food diet", it is their fault if they get dog piled and memed.

There is anti-vegan prejudice on HN, I've seen it, but the real backlash is usually when the defence of the vegan philosophy gets outlandish.

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#107

Post by Brendinooo » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 7:25 PM UTC

jawns wrote: post #100

ramblinrose wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for sharing this. It looks like Impossible X (the defendant) was the first to sue to have Impossible Foods cease using their logo and trademark. And now Impossible Foods isn't budging and asserting their weight through counter-suit. It still feels very unfair even though the small guy started it; he's trying to protect his brand. He has supplied actual cases of confusion between the two companies according to…

And isn't the company that holds the trademark legally obligated to defend it? My understanding is that if you aren't actively making sure that your trademark is not infringed upon, it bolsters the case that the trademark has been abandoned. So it's not like the trademark holder is looking for a fight. The law essentially forces their hand.

Companies can have the same name if they're in different industries. Seems like Impossible X/HQ or whatever was contending overlap on the nutrition/food side.

I'm not a lawyer and I'm not reading this closely as I'd need to in order to be more authoritative, but it seems like most of their trademarks are for non-food-related sectors. "Pharmaceutical Products" is the only one that looks close to "food" in the trademarks I'm seeing on their page. Not sure how you get from that to "recipes, food ingredients, and cooking information", but would love to hear from someone who would know!

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#108

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 7:27 PM UTC

kaycebasques wrote: post #48

jrm4 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Black person here. I don't think (though I'm not going to say I'm 100% certain) that the word "prejudice" is best here? You (very probably) made a choice to be a certain way, here. So, the "judice" part is correct, and people should perhaps be nicer, but this doesn't feel like the right word.

Thank you for the feedback. I understand your point. I was going off a dictionary definition along these lines: > preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience But I totally get that prejudice has connotations here that make it inappropriate for me as a white man to use

[deleted]

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#109

Post by datavirtue » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 7:27 PM UTC

kaycebasques wrote: post #16

As a vegan myself this is very unfortunate because we are already easy targets and subject to a lot of prejudice. Impossible Meat bullying a small company might unleash a backlash of anti-vegan sentiment that can take on a life of its own. Make no mistake it has been there all along. Go back to other discussions about veganism here on HN and you will see the common anti-vegan memes. But when you're one of the leading…

Why would a vegan ever eat impossible meat? They generally abstain from processed foods.

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#110

Post by jjeaff » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 7:33 PM UTC

maneesh wrote: post #61

When you look at the ImpossibleHQ vs Impossible Foods logo, it's obviously, without a doubt, a complete rip off. It's the sort of lawsuit that I would expect ImpossibleHQ to put against Impossible Foods, obviously not vice versa. It seems so clearly a rip off of the logo, that it's the kind of lawsuit that I want to invest in. Like -- I want to help fund a lawsuit against Impossible foods for millions that they rippe…

Not sure if I am seeing the same logos, but is the ripoff just that they are both the word "impossible" using a bold, non-serif font?

While I agree it is far too similar, it is also not at all unlikely that Impossible Foods designed their logo in a vacuum. Bold, non-serif logo fonts are certainly extremely popular as of the last 10+ years.