Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

impossiblehq.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 205 posts

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#111

Post by hervature »

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…

I disagree. It looks like both companies went to https://en.bestfonts.pro/font/tungsten and just wrote IMPOSSIBLE and chose semi bold. Anyway, the fonts are clearly different, the M being the giveaway and HQ has (for probably trademark reasons) whiteout the middle which synergizes with their product of crossing out the impossible which Foods has not done because they want to emphasize their food is impossible.

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#112

Post by chmod775 »

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…

> When you look at the ImpossibleHQ vs Impossible Foods logo, it's obviously, without a doubt, a complete rip off.

I have doubts.

Their logos aren't very similar, given the design space of today's black on white/white on black uppercase sans-serif[1] logos.

In fact only the strike through IMPOSSIBLE logo (https://trademarks.justia.com/871/16/impossible-87116503.htm...) appears to have any features that could be called creative or distinctive. That is owned by Impossible LLC, as opposed to Impossible Foods Inc.

If Impossible Foods used such a logo anywhere, I couldn't find it.

[1]: The Impossible Foods' logos in question actually have some subtle serifs, while Impossible's font is sans-serif.

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#113

Post by armoredkitten »

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…

I agree with you to some degree, but I don't feel like you're winning anyone over with the "I'm not X but if I were, I would just..."

I've been vegan for 6 years now, and vegetarian many years before that, and sure, usually I just cook foods that pull from cuisines that aren't heavy on meat, eggs, and dairy. Lots of great curries and stir fries and so forth to choose from.

But sometimes you just need a stupid thing that looks vaguely burger-shaped because your family/friends/coworkers are having a BBQ event and you need to bring something they can throw on the grill because you know they're not going to think about it and you don't want to have everyone poking fun with their lame jokes when you ask them to put the stuffed pepper with rice and beans on the grill for a few minutes. Sometimes you just want to blend in because Todd from accounting is fucking annoying any time he sees you eating something in the break room that's not a ribeye steak or whatever the hell he thinks his cavemen ancestors ate. And sometimes you just want sloppy, greasy comfort food that is absolutely shitty in terms of health but tastes delicious. And sometimes you're just sick of cooking for yourself AGAIN because why the hell aren't there any vegan options at the restaurants near me and goddammit I'm just going to pull those burgers out of the freezer.

I don't think you'll find too many vegetarians and vegans for whom faux meat options are an everyday thing. It depends on what options are available around you, and maybe if you have kids who won't eat anything other than chicken nuggets and hot dogs. But for the most part...it's just nice to have them there when we want them. And to the extent we can also show people "hey, there are foods that look a lot like foods you're already used to, so Todd will also leave YOU alone!" that's great too. So there's value to these products. Sure, not as much as these "disruptive" businesses are trying to imply, but....there's still value.

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#114

Post by datavirtue »

boston_clone wrote: post #73
jrm4 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do think it cuts both ways; veganism is extremely strange. The strangeness does not prove that it is good or bad -- but absolute veganism (as perhaps distinguishable from other historically popular, frequently religious diet practices) is wildly out of line with nearly all humans in all of human history -- and could reasonably appear to be overly simplistic. So, I think the "vegans that are complained about" are ne…

Conversely, it can easily be argued that it is paradoxical to normalize the slaughter and consumption of animals while simultaneously holding the belief that they should be protected (e.g. animal abuse laws). Approaching how we life our lives primarily from an ethical lens can lead to all sorts of uncomfortable or strange conclusions, however.

Exactly, one day no human will consume meat. There are many reasons why but the popularity of it now stems from humans dealing with starvation--which we are still dealing with. If I have a variety of vegetables and grains I don't even think about meat. We are privileged to be able to not eat meat. It is something I give thanks for. We glorify it but the act of eating meat is not dignified. The time we can salvage any sort of dignity is by not killing the animal, not processing it, and eating only the parts that deemed worthy by our culture (the tender parts that chew easily).

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#115

Post by Spivak »

Ensorceled wrote: post #76
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…

> 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…

Judging any group by its worst members isn't the most charitable regardless of the group. You end up not really making an argument outside of "I found a ridiculous person in this group" which like, yeah, true. But when you imply that they're somehow representative or to be taken seriously you end up just exposing your prejudices and/or ignorance. Dogpiling a person who thinks you can photosynthesize b12 is fine -- they're nuts. But if that person sours your opinion of V's then you clearly already had issues with them.

Veganism and vegetarianism aren't synonymous with healthy, they don't even try to be. It's actually a point of annoyance among V's that "vegetarian" options at restaurants try to be "light" and healthy when you really just want a basket of fries dipped in vegan mayo. Same with the aversion to processed foods, it's nothing to do with V's at all -- that's the "whole foods" movement thing. Some V's care about the environment, some V's care about whole foods, some V's care about animal suffering. The former two probably wouldn't eat an Impossible Burger, the latter might.

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#116

Post by datavirtue »

nitrogen wrote: post #36
delecti wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything I've seen suggests to me that most people's annoyance with perceived "preachy" vegans comes from cognitive dissonance around being forced to confront that vegans have a good point. Why confront real issues when you can make a bacon joke and say "oh, I could never give up cheese"? It's like when talking with someone who is very disciplined about exercise. Many will say something like "wow you're so lucky to…

most people's annoyance with perceived "preachy" vegans comes from cognitive dissonance Let's consider other "preachy" sources to see if this argument holds weight. Consider replacing "vegans" in this sentence with morally motivated religious evangelists of any kind, or morally motivated pro-/anti-abortion activists, or morally motivated homophobes, or MS/Apple/GNU fanboys/girls. So no, it's not that people think the…

What if no one is guilt tripping but the other side is just uncomfortable as hell with their own easy acceptance of the status quo?

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#118

Post by jrm4 »

datavirtue wrote: post #114
boston_clone wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conversely, it can easily be argued that it is paradoxical to normalize the slaughter and consumption of animals while simultaneously holding the belief that they should be protected (e.g. animal abuse laws). Approaching how we life our lives primarily from an ethical lens can lead to all sorts of uncomfortable or strange conclusions, however.

Exactly, one day no human will consume meat. There are many reasons why but the popularity of it now stems from humans dealing with starvation--which we are still dealing with. If I have a variety of vegetables and grains I don't even think about meat. We are privileged to be able to not eat meat. It is something I give thanks for. We glorify it but the act of eating meat is not dignified. The time we can salvage any…

"One day no human will consume meat."

If I had some time-travel-y way to bet my entire life savings against this prediction, I would.*

(*yeah, someone's going to get persnickety here. As long as humans are around, I believe some are going to eat meat.)

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#119

Post by datavirtue »

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.

Because you are robbing a living creature of the only thing that matters...its life...the now.

The next mental step is being able to debase the life of another human and classify them into castes. Aren't we trying to stop doing that? Animal husbandry keeps us ethically within the realm of easily devaluing other humans. You do it without even thinking.

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#120

Post by will4274 »

boston_clone wrote: post #102
KSteffensen wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 co…

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

It fails Kant's categorical imperative. Animals aren't going to believe that eating meat is wrong - and if we tried to prevent animals from eating meat, we'd kill a lot of them - not to mention it'd just be ridiculous. There's simply no way to include animals in universal law and maintain reciprocity. It's an internally inconsistent ethical philosophy, and obviously so.

That's to say - people make fun of ethical vegans for the same reason they make fun of libertarians - clear gaps in the philosophy they refuse to acknowledge.

Post reply on HN