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

151–160 of 205 posts

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#151

Post by elif »

ramblinrose wrote: post #80
zwieback wrote: post #55

Reading this: http://casefilingsalert.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Impos... it seems like Impossible X complained first and Impossible food is saying that they want it declared that they are not infringing on Impossible X's trademarks. IOW: little guy complained first and big guy is asking for relief that they are not doing anything wrong. Is there more to the story?

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…

at the hazard of siding with bullying megacorps...

isn't the public interest primarily in having a consistent definition of "impossible?" One which has been clearly meme'd into our culture already?

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#152

Post by ramblinrose »

joelrunyon wrote: post #129
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…

Respectfully. You may want to rewrite this.

Why do you say that? In my comment I'm rooting for you. I did say that you should have mentioned this is a counter-suit to your own suit, and I stand by that. Why omit that information? Or is that a misunderstanding?

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#153

Post by delecti »

will4274 wrote: post #139
delecti wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree that morals need to be reciprocated to be valid. It's not internally inconsistent to say I think it's immoral to kill things beings even if they wouldn't grant me or others the same.

Libertarians don't agree that the inability to protect the environment makes their philosophy invalid either. The fact is though, most people look for reciprocatity in their moral philosophy. It's not that every individual has to agree not to kill you. It's that we have to agree that punishment is appropriate for killers. Getting specific - it's incoherent to say it's immoral for humans to kill rabbits but moral for…

I'm not arguing that it's moral for foxes to kill rabbits. I'm arguing that the presence of immoral actors does not negate the arguments in favor of morality. Foxes aren't immoral, they're amoral. It's wrong for me to kill people even if natural disasters do. I can't have a moral discussion with a fox.

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#154

Post by boston_clone »

will4274 wrote: post #120
boston_clone wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I don't think that's an accurate representation of Kant's viewpoints; please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative#Cruelty...

It's been many years since my collegiate philosophy course that focused on ethics in society - largely using Peter Singer's works as focal points of discussion - but could you try and reframe your idea? It doesn't seem like reciprocity has much bearing on this topic.

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#155

Post by boston_clone »

KSteffensen wrote: post #121
boston_clone wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

The Wikipedia article describes the various psychological mechanisms people use to avoid thinking about the fact that something they are doing involves something else getting killed. It does not provide arguments for why killing an animal for it's meat (or hide or other resource) is wrong. A counterpoint to your 'raising humans for consumption' point which is equally extreme but in the opposite direction. How do you…

It is commonly understood that plants do not have the same mechanisms to experience a range of emotions (pain, happiness, sadness, etc.) as fish, birds, and other animals do.

Further, if we want to abstract away from a mechanistic understanding and focus purely on a reduction of suffering, then veganism should be your goal. Most crop production is simply for animal feed. Eliminating animals from our diets would dramatically decrease the amount of plants we destroy.

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#156

Post by elif »

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…

Your only argument about nutrition was regarding B12, for which the questionably trademarked product has 130% DV. Then you broaden your conclusion to somehow not addressing climate change?

So i'll address that one. The product is 98% soy with coconut, and sunflower oil to help it cook. Not particularly climate-intensive, soy is a valuable crop to rotate for the soil ecology in a country that produces so much corn to feed your dinner cows.

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#157

Post by RandallBrown »

datavirtue wrote: post #109
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.

I've seen lots of vegans eat highly processed foods like nut milks and cheeses, tofu, and even impossible and beyond meats.

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#158

Post by boston_clone »

KSteffensen wrote: post #141
JCharante wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you seen the movie "The Island"? A organ supplier fakes a post apocalypse for the humans living in the bunkers. They still live a nice life and when they need organs they hold a lottery to see who gets to go to the surface where they've built a resort on an island as they supposedly repopulate. These humans live fairly happy lives and were bred (cloned) to be harvested for the organs. Would you oppose the real w…

I would not be ok with such a dystopia. However I don't think there's a clear line to be drawn. Why do most people object to eating dog or cat while they have no problem with pork? Pigs are about as intelligent as dogs (and can also learn to recognize individual humans). Extrapolating that line of thought there is also no fundamental difference between eating plants and animals, but most people argue that it's morall…

> Why do most people object to eating dog or cat while they have no problem with pork?

Cognitive dissonance, plain and simple. This was explained in the Wikipedia article I linked above.

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#159

Post by boston_clone »

Alupis wrote: post #127
kaycebasques wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. There's the old vegan joke for a reason: How do you know someone is a vegan? They'll tell you all about it... I think vegans get a bad rep because too often they feel the need to convert others to veganism too. Veg…

> Just live and let live.

...except for animals, right?

This is a prime example of the dissonance that comes from having carnism as a dominant ideology for dietary preference.

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#160

Post by Brendinooo »

maneesh wrote: post #68
tslater2006 wrote: post #56

Case number for locating it in PACER: 5:2021cv02419 At a glance of the complaint it seems that Impossible X started this with complaints and legal action against mpossible Foods for infringing on their trademarks. The complaint additionally shows that Impossible X was granted their registration of IMPOSSIBLE on Jan 9th, 2018.

Here's a list of Impossible trademarks: https://impossiblex.com/trademarks/ Note the logo: Class 041 | 025 | 12/18/2012 https://trademark.trademarkia.com/impossible-85578345.html The registration date was in 2012, and, apart from the blank line in the middle, is identical to impossible food's logo. Both use League Gothic Font.

Impossible Foods absolutely does not use League Gothic. It's using Tungsten Semibold, a font by Hoefler&Co.
Post reply on HN