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

91–100 of 205 posts

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#91

Post by s1artibartfast »

Causality1 wrote: post #47
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.

A victim complex is a common response when privileged people realize others find them insufferable.

A victim complex is a common response when anyone realizes others find them insufferable.

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#92

Post by technobabbler »

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…

As another vegan, diet should have no bearing on this. It's a big company bullying a smaller one just because they can. The immorality of that doesn't depend on what you eat.

If it bothers you, let Impossible Meat know: https://faq.impossiblefoods.com/hc/en-us/requests/new

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#93

Post by dhosek »

nefitty wrote: post #81
g_p wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is there any past examples of investment/crowdfunding for a lawsuit, where the investors earn returns if a lawsuit succeeds? Sounds like you're describing litigation funding (a fairly established market). You'd probably want to back it by insurance to cover the investors and party bringing the action against adverse costs exposure. Litigation funding is often provided by insurers anyway as a result, as they can put…

I wonder if there's a litigation betting market. I know there's prediction markets, but I'm wondering about a community dedicated to market making on any/all lawsuits.

I can see that becoming a serious moral hazard. If a judge or juror can make money on a lawsuit that they're deciding reaching a particular verdict, then there's a very real danger that they will do so. I'm pretty sure that in the grand scheme of things we want less opportunity for this sort of corruption of the judicial process, not more.

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#94

Post by njgingrich »

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #57
gruez wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>So, is there really that much value in these industrial "plant-based" meat/cheese substitutes? I don't think so, but they're being marketed as if they were a great step forward to "reduce our dependence on meat" — a dependence which does not actually exist. you're vastly underestimating how much people like the taste of meat. there's a reason why countries up their meat consumption as they industrialize and get weal…

No. They are highly processed and they generally taste like garbage. For months I was told about how great Miyoko's products were. Then I tasted some of the cheese offerings and they tasted like gritty mold. There was a Kite Hill Farms vegan blueberry yogurt that was delicious, but the peach version nearly made me lose my lunch.

Cheese and yogurt are not meat, though? I agree vegan cheese is terrible, and the faux-meat products aren't an exact replica, but they aren't bad.

There's definitely less of a push for a general adoption of vegan cheese than there is for meat alternatives.

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#95

Post by ianmcgowan »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #78
kaycebasques wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cannot believe I am reading someone claim prejudice is a word that should not be used if you have a certain skin color. Did the judicial system stop dismissing cases with prejudice?

Did the CIA stop terminating people "with extreme prejudice"?

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#96

Post by MisterTea »

kaycebasques wrote: post #89
MisterTea wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

There's a lot of connotations to that word related to racism. I have no problem with the original commenter calling out that it may not be the best word to use.

> There's a lot of connotations to that word related to racism.

It's use is not exclusive to racism. To exclude other uses is ironically prejudiced.

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#97

Post by [deleted] »

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?

[deleted]

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#98

Post by KSteffensen »

boston_clone wrote: post #69
4eleven7 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vegans do have a good point, however, for the majority of the population food is just something that they crave, eat for taste, or because it is thrust in their face daily by corporations. They aren't doing it for the sake of killing, and therefore the point that vegans make isn't something people consider nor care for. I personally think your diet should be based on nutrition, with morals and the environment followi…

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.

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#99

Post by kaycebasques »

MisterTea wrote: post #82
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…

> But when you're one of the leading brands of a minority movement like veganism Neither you nor impossible foods speak for the vegan movement. Most of my vegan friends do not eat this fake garbage nor would they ever make foolish claims like this.

Point taken that I and Impossible do not speak for the vegan movement. I think I could prove my point with a theoretical bet, however. Ask X amount of people from the overall general population to name the top 3 vegan brands, and I would take the wager that Impossible is in that top 3. Therefore they would be significantly identified with veganism at large.

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#100

Post by jawns »

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…

And isn't the company that holds the trademark legally obligated to defend it? My understanding is that if you aren't actively making sure that your trademark is not infringed upon, it bolsters the case that the trademark has been abandoned.

So it's not like the trademark holder is looking for a fight. The law essentially forces their hand.

Post reply on HN