trademark infringement or harrassment?

[sfzombie 3]

anyone heard of this case? http://www.openforum.com/articles/why-is-a-fast-food-giant-going-after-a-one-man-business
my thoughts on the matter say that he should use the notion that his spelling is correct and that the reason the chick fil a trademark is unique...thoughts anyone?

http://kitswv.com

[catfishhunter 2]

Read the last part. They don't have a choice but to go after him. Dumbass shouldn't have pissed in their Cheerios a second time. He is going lose out in the long run no matter what happens.

MAKE EVERY DAY COUNT
Life is Short and we never know how long we are going to have. We must live life to the fullest EVERY DAY. Everything we do should have a greater purpose.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

He is going lose out in the long run no matter what happens.

Were the case to go to trial (most of these don't), the ultimate verdict could go either way. Trademark infringement cases are necessarily very subjective, i.e., reasonable judges and jurors could easily disagree with each other as to how this should come down. The fact that they've prevailed in a number of other similar cases is not necessarily controlling, but it is a barometer that would be foolish to ignore. And unless the potential defendant's insurance covers his legal fees (which I doubt, for this type of case), then it will certainly cost him a lot to defend, win or lose.

[catfishhunter 2]

Might point exactly even if he wins he loses as he will never be able to make back what it will cost in the end. The pro bono work he is getting now will end once it actually goes before a judge and jury then the the cost will be so high it would be foolish to continue.

MAKE EVERY DAY COUNT
Life is Short and we never know how long we are going to have. We must live life to the fullest EVERY DAY. Everything we do should have a greater purpose.

[lawrocket 3]

I agree with Andy - this is certainly something that is up to the trier of fact. The thing about trademark is all about "likelihood of confusion." That is, would Joe Blow be confused and think that "Eat More Kale" is a statement of Chik Fil A or however the fuck it's spelled?

There are strong arguments on both sides of this. Both sides have a case.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

He is going lose out in the long run no matter what happens.

Were the case to go to trial (most of these don't), the ultimate verdict could go either way.

Unless it was against say, Disney and its army of lawyers.

Just looking at the graphic and use of the words and comparing it to numerous Trademark cases I've seen over my decades of associations with Disney, they wouldn't stand a chance in court.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Unless it was against say, Disney and its army of lawyers.

I'm going to trial tomorrow. Against the biggest and baddest law firm in the Central Valley. They'll have two - perhaps three - lawyers there. And there will be just me on this side.

The law and facts are on my side and I fully expect to win. The issue with an "army of lawyers" is more often that of one side having the resources to paper the other side to death. But in such a case as this - with a limited issue - I don't see that as being the case.

The money comes in legal fees and costs of experts, the studies being performed that would show likelihood of confusion or lack thereof.

For example, picture Michael Buffer - he lays the hammer on ANYBODY who uses his copyrighted phrase, paraphrased as "let us get prepared for a gangland-type scrap." (Yeah - I know better than to type that one verbatim). That phrase is that guy's LIVING, and anybody who uses it takes money out of his pocket.

There are good reasons for Trademarks, service marks and trade dress protections. Where's Sen. Blutarsky when we need him? I haven't seen him in years,.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 4]

You put army of lawyers in sarcasti-quotes as if you don't believe Disney has an actual army of lawyers? It's not just three, but literally hundreds and that's staff not consultants.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Niki1 2]

I know that the "law" has little to do with right and wrong but this just seems wrong to me. The chicken people have a slogan that is misspelled and appears to have been written by a cow. Muller-Micheals slogan is spelled correctly. And what, exactly, is "kale"?
How far does the copyright go? If I tell a friend to "Eat more chicken" am I in violation? A slogan that says, "Grill More Chicken"? Is a slogan that says, "Shit More Chicken" in violation because it must be eaten first.
I once heard that laws were based on the concept of a "reasonable and prudent man". Has the bar for reasonable and prudent been lowered that much when I wasn't looking?

Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossilbe before they were done.
Louis D Brandeis

Where are we going and why are we in this basket?

[billvon 3,120]

>And what, exactly, is "kale"?

A cruciferous vegetable like cabbage.

[billvon 3,120]

>That is, would Joe Blow be confused and think that "Eat More Kale" is a
>statement of Chik Fil A or however the fuck it's spelled?

A strong argument AGAINST that premise is that there are a lot of "eat more X" campaigns out there, so a reasonable person would assume that "eat more X" is a generic suggestion to eat more of something, not a cow-generated suggestion to eat more chicken.

Some examples:

Eat More Heat - spicy food review site
Eat More Tees - T-shirt sales company
Eat More Brook Trout - fishing advocacy site
Eat More - candy bar by Hershey's

[muff528 3]

According to wiki: "EAT MOR CHIKIN is the chain's most prominent advertising slogan, created by the The Richards Group in 1995". Also says the chain started in 1986. I know I had a t-shirt that said "Eat Mo Cooter" at least 10 years before that.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Some examples:

Eat More Heat - spicy food review site
Eat More Tees - T-shirt sales company
Eat More Brook Trout - fishing advocacy site
Eat More - candy bar by Hershey's

Quote

Look... me and the McDonald's people got this little misunderstanding. See, they're McDonald's... I'm McDowell's. They got the Golden Arches, mine is the Golden Arcs. They got the Big Mac, I got the Big Mick. We both got two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles and onions, but their buns have sesame seeds. My buns have no seeds.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

According to wiki: "EAT MOR CHIKIN is the chain's most prominent advertising slogan, created by the The Richards Group in 1995". Also says the chain started in 1986. I know I had a t-shirt that said "Eat Mo Cooter" at least 10 years before that.

I had one that said "Eat Shit". Glad they didn't come after me for it.

[muff528 3]

Quote

Quote

According to wiki: "EAT MOR CHIKIN is the chain's most prominent advertising slogan, created by the The Richards Group in 1995". Also says the chain started in 1986. I know I had a t-shirt that said "Eat Mo Cooter" at least 10 years before that.

I had one that said "Eat Shit". Glad they didn't come after me for it.

I'd buy tickets to the courtroom to hear Chick-fil-a explain how that might cause confusion with their customers.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote:

"Your client's Eat More Kale Mark plays off of and imitates Chick-fil-A's valuable 'Eat Mor Chikin' Intellectual Property by using a prefix confusingly similar to Chick-fil-A's federally-registered 'Eat Mor Chikin' trademarks," Chick-Fil-A's lawyer wrote...

This is bullshit. You can't trademark the phrase "eat more ". It's a normal conversation thing that belongs to no one in particular, because it belongs to everyone in general. When my doctor tells me that because of my cholesterol numbers I should eat less beef and eat more chicken and fish, is she infringing upon the chicken restaurant's trademark? Hell no. Not even if she's trying to sell me a fish sandwich at the time.

And what the heck is this "fil-A" part of their restaurant name anyway? Is that supposed to be some cutesy way of spelling "fillet"?

[Gravitymaster 0]

This is the final straw. I'm boycotting Chik-Fil-A.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

. You can't trademark the phrase "eat more ". .....?

my sentiment too


"eat more" is not a really amazing bolt of original genius from the advertising industry by any means

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,120]

>"eat more" is not a really amazing bolt of original genius from the advertising industry by any means

But it's, like, a cow saying that so that more people eat chicken instead of cows. It's funny because otherwise the cow would be slaughtered.

And cows can't spell, so they put "eat mor chikin" on the sign - get it? get it? - it's hilarious once you get it.

[quade 4]

Quote

"eat more" is not a really amazing bolt of original genius from the advertising industry by any means

It doesn't have to be. All a Trademark has to do is associate a phrase or image with a product. If some other company uses the phrase or image in such a way that it creates confusion in the minds of reasonable consumers, then it's a Trademark violation.

In this case, if you look at the image, I'd say Chick-Fil-A doesn't just have a case, they'll win.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

yeah. They do have an army of lawyers. But I also sued Disneyland once (something kinda exciting about suing the "Happiest Place on Earth") and they're defense was run by outside counsel with a firm with which I had plenty of experience. They had a partner and an associate running the case.

Armies of lawyers are typically involved in transactional things. When conglomerates merge it's tens of thousands of hours of attorney work for those. IPO's are also big-time armies of lawyers. And when there is patent litigation, trade secrets, etc., there might be 150 thousand documents to examine, which requires a LOT of lawyers.

I do think that there are a lot of misconceptions about things. Not to say that it doesn't happen. It does, but those cases are the exception rather than the rule. For example, once I was in a deposition that lasted two weeks. There was me plus 33 other lawyers in there from all over the country. Each represented an entity of some sort that collectively invested in essentially a Ponzi scheme of over $400 million dollars. The lease holders were suing the sureties, who were suing the insurers who were suing the reinsurers. Big money. Big case. Lots of people.

I've seen it. Can't say I liked it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

>And what, exactly, is "kale"?

A cruciferous vegetable like cabbage.

And kale is some of the healthiest stuff you can eat from a nutrition content with low calories.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

"eat more" is not a really amazing bolt of original genius from the advertising industry by any means

It doesn't have to be. All a Trademark has to do is associate a phrase or image with a product. If some other company uses the phrase or image in such a way that it creates confusion in the minds of reasonable consumers, then it's a Trademark violation.

In this case, if you look at the image, I'd say Chick-Fil-A doesn't just have a case, they'll win.

If the guy was selling fast food, maybe. Seems like a stretch since they're clearly not in competing industries.

I'd join the boycott save for the fact that I don't know where the nearest Chick Fil A is. Maybe in the valley? If they didn't sponsor a bowl game, I still wouldn't know they exist.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

>And what, exactly, is "kale"?

A cruciferous vegetable like cabbage.

And kale is some of the healthiest stuff you can eat from a nutrition content with low calories.

I was in a restaurant recently, and ordered garlic-sauteed broccoli rabe (which is not a form of broccoli; it's a/k/a rapini), which I happen to love. Turns out it was actually kale. Blech. I hate kale. Heathen bastards. I wanted to torch the place, but my wife told me to behave. She's always cramping my style.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I don't know where the nearest Chick Fil A is. Maybe in the valley?

I ate there once.


once

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants