Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

First, lets separate 2 groups of people: 1. People that have a vegan diet. 2. People that actively defend veganism.

I have nothing against the group 1, but the prejudice you see, is because of group 2, I can say to you using rough napkin calculations that something like 95% of people I met in group two were total toxic assholes. Some examples of people I personally met:

1. Guy in school, kept telling me, CONSTANTLY, that I was eating corpses and whatnot, it was very annoying.

2. Another guy in school, told me I was evil because I ate meat, proceeded to rummage through my backpack and kick my belongings like if they were soccer balls (even screaming "goal" after he made my bible go between two chairs).

3. Chick I met in college, she asked me to become vegan, I told her I wouldn't and that I would keep eating bacon, her reaction was literally hit my head with her purse.

4. Various activist groups that did some insanely dumb shit where I live, one for example went to a research laboratory and freed all the animals, they took the cute animals (like beagles) home, and released the rest, without any notion if it was good idea or not to do so (several animals weren't native, and some were in the lab because they were being treated with experimental treatments for infectious diseases).

5. Random vegan I met online, dunno who that person is, I explained I have to eat meat due to a health condition, person then proceeded to tell me I should just die instead, that it was better for the planet for all people that need to eat meat to just die.

Not really that simple. Nissan Motors spent nearly a decade dragging a guy with the last name of "Nissan" through trademark court battles over his prior existing company "Nissan Computers" which did and still does own the domains Nissan.com and Nissan.net. Ultimately Nissan Computers won and got a small amount back for attorney fees but claims it was less than 2% they spent defending their brand and mark (IIRC he did not have a federally registered trademark but a service mark from a state of something like that).

Why do people smoke cigarettes? Why do people drink soft drinks like coca cola which is full of sugars?

I mean whats the point of asking these? Being vegan doesn't mean you have to eat healthy food 24x7. They are normal human being following ethics. And there is no rule that tells vegan should abstain processed foods.

I don't think that's what's happening at all. Seems like Impossible existed prior, and had trademarks. Impossible Foods started later, and used the name (and logo for that matter) for years without being questioned.

Now recently, Impossible brought trademark threats against Impossible Foods. What is being referenced here is like a countersuit from Impossible Foods, and their demand is specifically that they be granted the Impossible trademark in the context of "recipes, food ingredients, and cooking information."

The main source of conflict would be around Impossible's "Impossible Nutrition," which is trademarked. However, Impossible Foods predates that product and trademark.

So it seems like originally there was no conflict as they were in different areas- that's totally normal. However after Impossible Foods had been created, Impossible launched a line of nutrition products that create a possible conflict. Impossible then made some trademark threats against Impossible Foods, and Impossible Foods has responded with a suit asking for relief and that they be granted the Trademark in the context of food.

I'm open to the possibility that I'm reading this wrong, but I think Impossible Foods is 100% in the right here.

The logo thing is definitely dicier, but they do seem different enough that you probably wouldn't get in trouble for that.

> I don't see why the order of magnitude of the suffering or number of entities made to suffer matters

I absolutely disagree. Minimizing suffering is good. Less suffering is better than more suffering. The specifics of implementing it are obviously complicated, but if you don't agree that minimizing suffering is a good thing, at least in theory, then I don't know if we have any moral common ground.

> Is it acceptable to inflict suffering on other beings to alleviate your own suffering or hunger?

I assert that I have a right to attempt to continue my existence. Given that, and the above, I think it follows necessarily that it's better to cause less suffering in that pursuit, if possible (and it is).

Also, all of this is only entertaining the possibility that plants can suffer for the purpose of discussion. I think it's entirely obvious that they cannot experience suffering.