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

171–180 of 205 posts

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#171

Post by phonypc »

delecti wrote: post #153
will4274 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If foxes are amoral agents, why is it immoral to kill them?

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#172

Post by singlow »

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 IMPOSSIBLE HQ logo next to MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE logo it is an obvious rip-off.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission:_Impossible#/media/Fil...

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#173

Post by boston_clone »

Alupis wrote: post #168
boston_clone wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).

There is nothing about eating fruits, vegetables, grains, and legumes that goes against our biology. The American Dietetics Association recognizes a vegetarian diet as appropriate for all stages of life [0]. Meat is not a requirement to live a healthy life, and can - in some cases and excess - detriment overall health. Additionally, current animal agricultural practices are harmful to the environment.

0. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27886704/

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#174

Post by singlow »

NobodyNada wrote: post #19
londgine wrote: post #7

If the "later" impossible food succeeds in canceling the trademark, does that mean that any company can market their product as "impossible burgers"?

No, Impossible Food is suing to cancel Impossible HQ's trademark, and not their own. They want to be the only company allowed to use the "Impossible" branding, even though they weren't the first.

Actually it seems they are just trying to avoid being sued frivolously by a company that is making false claims about the trademark.

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#175

Post by singlow »

joeyoungblood wrote: post #144
dehrmann wrote: post #33

If their nutrition products and trademark pre-date Impossible Foods, Impossible Foods might be in some trouble. IANAL, but trademarks on actual words are first-come, first-served, and for a specific context. Apple Computer and Apple Records/Corps.: ok, no customer confusion. Apple Computer launches a product called iTunes and a service named Apple Music, it gets dicey.

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…

So it was that simple? The trademark of a non competing company in a different industry was not considered infringing by the courts?

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#176

Post by SllX »

kaycebasques wrote: post #103
SllX wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that I gave no indication that they were more than a fringe and pointed out that they were not well representative of vegans as a whole. Radicals are by definition the fringe and don’t need additional qualifiers, particularly in a sentence that was loaded with them (vegan moralists are also not representative of vegans; many vegans are vegan for pure dietary reasons or personal preference). My real point was thi…

> Note that I gave no indication that they were more than a fringe Perhaps I am misunderstanding you but your phrasing in the quote below seems to imply that most vegans are secretly aligned with or could be persuaded into become the radical moralists you mention earlier: > Not all vegans share that view but often independently come very close to it or could still be swayed into a more radical world view It's just st…

Persuadables—non-aligned people without a strong position one way or another—are generally the largest subset of any group with an ideological element to it, and while the ideological component is severable from vegans individually, it is not severable from veganism as a movement.

This doesn’t mean they are secretly aligned, just that given the right circumstances, they could be persuaded to a more (again, more, not necessarily most!) radical position. Most people can, this isn’t limited to vegans nor does this apply strictly to veganism.

> It's just strange to me that you're talking about radicalizing while seemingly using radicalizing debating tactics yourself. I'm sorry if that comes off as disrespectful or rude but that's the crux of my issue with your comment.

Understandable. What it boils down to is I chose a tactic of advocating for a pretense while dropping all pretenses myself. Pretenses are inherently deceitful, but they can serve a good cause used appropriately, in this case maintaining basic social order. But by opening up my real thoughts underneath that pretense I was hoping to demonstrate why the pretense was in fact useful. Judging by the vote counter, I’ve seen it break even a few times today so that tells me it’s split down the middle how many people got that and how many people didn’t, so clearly I have room to improve too.

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#177

Post by Lhiw »

hervature wrote: post #111
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.

> looks like both companies

Yea, that's the point...

Try setting up a farm equipment business called McDonalds using the same font as McD's but with a line through it, see how that works out for ya.

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#178

Post by will4274 »

delecti wrote: post #153
will4274 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It still doesn't follow. It's wrong to kill because of the harm killing causes. Whether the killing is done my an immoral or amoral agent doesn't change the effect. If you really believe dead rabbits is a bad result, you ought be spending your time preventing the amoral agents from causing that bad result.

Consider an infant - an infant is basically an amoral agent - it doesn't understand killing. If a infant kills somebody with a gun, we don't say "oh well, he doesn't understand killing" - we say "why the heck did that baby have a gun? Where are his parents?" We expect moral agents to prevent amoral agents from causing harm. So why aren't you trying to prevent the foxes from killing the rabbits?

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#179

Post by mint2 »

Symmetry wrote: post #131
mint2 wrote: post #124

Basically this just goes to show the way trademarks work is broken. One shouldn’t be able to trademark single words, or at the very least common ones.

Just because a word is trademarked doesn't mean that someone else can't use, or even trademark, the same word in a different line of business. I can't call my new OS "Windows". I probably won't be able to start a line of computer monitors called "Windows" either. But if I wanted to open a line of restaurants under the "Windows" brand I'd probably be fine. Trademarks are only enforceable when there's a danger of consu…

In theory yes, but when a litigious company has deeper pockets, being in the right doesn’t matter if one doesn’t have enough money to prove it.

Barring that type of one common word trademark would prevent some of those or make it cheaper to defend.

For instance backcountry online suing things like coffee shops called backcountry nitro coffee; outdoor safety clinics called backcountry babes that taught avalanche safety for women; and many more.

One word Generic terms in any field should explicitly not be trade-marketable.

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#180

Post by Tagbert »

solarkraft wrote: post #22

Wow, this deteriorates my view of impossible foods as the “good guys”. I get that they want the brand, but that they apparently haven’t even attempted to buy it is pretty telling.

Remember that this is a countersuit to Impossible’s trademark suit against Impossible Foods. The company’s products were originally in separate product categories and should not have conflicted. Then Impossible brought out nutrition supplements which got closer to the food category. Yes, the logos probably look to much like each other though both are rather generic condensed bold sans-serif logotypes.
Post reply on HN