101–110 of 241 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I think Lego should sue Kellogs
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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-... 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…
[flagged]
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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-... 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…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. Ke…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. Ke…
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. Ke…
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.
Trademark law does have carveouts for people that are selling different products, doing parody, etc. But that isn't what this is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
The entire business is branded like Eggo waffles. The colors used, the font and stylistic “E” are the same, the white outlining of red letters on a yellow field is copied. It isn’t just the name and phrase, the entire brand is copied over.
I’m not making a judgment on the morality of the law. But under the law itself, I can completely understand how Kellog’s has a strong claim here
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't want to spend time and money to fight with a $350B company.
If that's your logic they can make you do anything they like. They can ask you for $100m "because I said so" and you'll comply to avoid spending $200m on lawyers.
But otherwise, you've got the math right. Settling is typically advised when the cost to litigate is expected to be more than the cost to settle.