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

161–170 of 205 posts

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#161

Post by mindslight »

joelrunyon wrote: post #130
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?

You left out a pretty big part: > ...That this Court declare that Impossible X’s trademark registrations in Registration Nos. 5376208, 5387588, and 5620625 be cancelled...

I'm going to chime in as yet another voice saying it feels somewhat cheap for you to have left out the part where Impossible X sued Impossible Foods first. Given the similarity between the logos and the fact you have to police a trademark to protect it, Impossible X's suit appears completely justified. But as it stands your current story comes across a bit dishonest, as if you're trying to claim this attempt to cancel your trademark just came out of nowhere. There is a larger situation here, and you do a disservice to both your audience and yourself by brushing past it.

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#162

Post by jrm4 »

sprite wrote: post #50
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.

The word has nothing to do with whether you chose to be that way or not. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/prejudice

According to the dictionary, sure. What makes you think the "dictionary" is the end-all-be-all for how words work?

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#163

Post by jrm4 »

MisterTea wrote: post #85
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.

> Black person here. No disrespect but what does being black have to do with the usage of the word prejudice? Because the parent you responded to used it correctly.

"Correctly" is weird, which is precisely why I tried state my point in a very non-conclusive way. Which went over like a lead balloon. :)

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#164

Post by kevinh »

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…

If you're hanging out with someone, it's almost impossible for it not to come up that you're vegan, since a large amount of places to eat have no vegan-friendly foods. You either have to bring up that you can't eat somewhere (since it has nothing you can eat) or not eat at all (prompting questions about that).

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#165

Post by jrm4 »

JCharante wrote: post #134
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.

Isn't religion a choice? I know plenty of people who have converted and they weren't forced to convert. You can be prejudiced against someone else of a differnet religion.

Not purely. The meaning of "religion" varies greatly across both time and space, and it would be difficult to argue that it is always (or even often) something like "pure choice."

It frequently carries a cultural component such that the law sees fit to treat it like other arguably immutable identity type things, which seems correct to me. Though, it is complicated.

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#166

Post by jrm4 »

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

I was definitely not saying "white people shouldn't use it."

What I was saying is a little bit closer to - "Prejudice" connotes "identity" type issues, and I don't think 'veganism' is like that.

(Once again -- CONNOTES -- for all the dictionary lovers out there)

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#167

Post by Alupis »

kevinh wrote: post #164
Alupis wrote: post #127

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'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…

If you're hanging out with someone, it's almost impossible for it not to come up that you're vegan, since a large amount of places to eat have no vegan-friendly foods. You either have to bring up that you can't eat somewhere (since it has nothing you can eat) or not eat at all (prompting questions about that).

Good point. I guess the only time someone should care about your dietary preference is if you're having a dinner party or going out to eat.

That's appropriate use of the "I'm a vegan" line...

Just don't go over the top and tell people they're bad for eating a hamburger or inject your veganism into otherwise irrelevant conversation.

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#168

Post by Alupis »

boston_clone wrote: post #159
Alupis wrote: post #127

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'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.

Eating what biology intended you to eat is not an ideology.

Making a conscious decision to go against biology and select a different dietary preference is indeed an ideology (unless there is a real medical reason you cannot eat something, such as allergies).

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#169

Post by Ensorceled »

Spivak wrote: post #115
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…

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 -- th…

I'm not sure you are replying to. I have vegan and vegetarian friends and family; I certainly don't judge vegans according to its worst members.

I find the "worst" of vegans annoying and pedalling dangerous myths. Eating vegan while staying healthy is hard work and real health problems can occur if you don't put in that work.

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#170

Post by cheese_goddess »

datavirtue wrote: post #116
nitrogen wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

How about "meat is murder"? You don't think that's guilt tripping? Or that it's actually an extremely aggressive thing to say that's likely to upset some people?
Post reply on HN