Just another tale of stupid lawyers and litigious society (American) wasting people’s time.
bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/2 … technology
No, Unicorn meat does NOT exist… people will not confuse it with pork because it’s called the “new white meat” and you happen to trademark “the other white meat”.
That was a cease and desist request, not an actual lawsuit for damages, not even a court order. And as stupid as it was, I fail to see how you extrapolate that into a negative comment on “litigious” US society. The ability to bring lawsuits is one of the few things that lets the average guy keep big corporations (and some small ones) from screwing people over. We usually hear about and remember only to silly stupid ones like the McDonalds coffee drinker lawsuit, but the fact is, being able to sue is extremely important in keeping businesses (and the government sometimes) honest.
Funny article though, and the Pork Board and their lawyers are truly pathetic.
Taiwan is getting more ligitatious now than before… before they wouldn’t sue even if a faulty product killed a lot of people but now they are having more and more lawsuits and most likely for good reasons too. Its either that or the media will blow things out of proportions and cause the dishonest business to lose major face…
If your name is the Pork Board, then how could you be anything but.
If your name is the Pork Board, then how could you be anything but.
Pork me, it went in two times.
Did it taste as good the second time?
Yes, only America has a litigious society. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight! :ohreally:
I did not say that US was the “only” litigious society, only that it is “a” such society.
@twotongues: I realize it’s not a judgment, etc. my point is that it’s still frivolous. The TM is for “the other white meat” in reference to pork. The original gag product (and one could argue this impinges on 1st amendment) was unicorn meat as the “new white meat”. To say that this would confuse the market place, much less fobbing off the product Pork is entirely silly and baseless. To believe that this is made in protection of one’s IP is laughable. That this was a cease and desist letter, rather than a judgment, doesn’t detract from its appalling behaviour. That the attorneys didn’t investigate into the claim and advise against it is laughable.
commenting on this doesn’t mean that I don’t understand or condemn the right of a person to have due process and “have his day in court” to let his rights be adjudged. I don’t know where you get that from. clearly, you are much more liberal with your extrapolations.
In fact, your point of the average guy being able to sue the big company to vindicate his rights correlates with the point I’m making here: the big corporations here have reversed the tables - the powerful pork industry took such an aggressive stance towards this little guy unreasonably because it’s in the habit of using the law as a weapon in its concerted efforts to squash any would-be threat (which in this case, was the fictional up-and-coming unicorn meat industry). So in fact, you should be applauding my message; it’s amazing you can’t see the silliness of that.
The Pork Board letter hilarious not because US society is litigious, it’s that the Pork Board and it’s lawyers or whoever wrote the letter are fucking idiots.
If the meat were really from an animal, the Pork Board might be entirely correct in issuing that letter, and not being ridiculously litigious at all, since they have “the other white meat” copyrighted. The issue is silly at face value without commenting on the “litigious” nature of US society, which puts a political slant on it.
But probably I’m just over-pumped with all the political debate going on in IP, if so, my bad.
I’d be surprised if the lawyers didn’t charge a fee for that letter. They usually do.
[quote]And in this state she [i. e., Queen Mab] gallops night by night
Through lovers’ brains, and then they dream of love;
O’er courtiers’ knees, that dream on curtsies straight;
O’er lawyers’ fingers, who straight dream on fees. . . .
[/quote]–Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet (ca. 1595) 1.4.80
[quote]Of fees and robes hadde he many oon. [/quote]–Chaucer, General Prologue (The Canterbury Tales), l. 319 (ca. 1392)
And of course, a fella’s gotta stay busy.
[quote]Nowher so bisy a man as he ther nas,
And yet he semed bisier than he was. . . .[/quote]–Ibid., 323-324
There are unpleasant ways to characterize that sort of behavior on the part of some lawyers, but I can’t say it’s dumb. They probably picked up a little walking around money for it, and they probably figure every little bit helps.
Back in the States, I was once discussing the subject of on-the-job discretion with a printer, who told me, “If a customer wants a print job done in Chinese and in purple ink, I’ll do the job in Chinese and in purple ink.” Maybe that’s what happened here, or something like it: “Yessir, we’ll get right on it. We’ll stop them unicorn people dead in their tracks!”
Who knows, maybe the lawyer who wrote it had a good chuckle about it himself (or herself). But maybe they should have given a little thought to the possibility of embarrassment if word of their “unicorn letter” ever got out.
Actually, while I agree it’s a funny case and it makes the Pork Board look silly, it’s not so absurd that they hired expensive lawyers to fire off the letter. Brands, slogans, trademarks, and so forth are immensely valuable. According to this list, the CocaCola brand is worth $68 billion, the IBM brand is worth $60 billion, etc.
“The other white meat” isn’t the name of a company, but it is a slogan that the Pork Board has invested many millions of dollars in, marketing it, grooming it, cultivating it, using it to try to convince people pork is healthy, so they should buy it. They’ve spent a lot on that slogan and it has great value to them.
When some geek comes along and says “Unicorn meat, the other white meat,” it’s not “trademark infringement” (despite the lawyers’ claim) because it’s highly unlikely anyone would be confused into thinking unicorn meat is actually pork meat, or they came from the same source. But it definitely could be “dilution”, the legal doctrine where someone uses another’s protected mark in an unsavory manner so as to tarnish the mark or simply in such a way that it loses some of its unique and finely-cultivated value. It’s been a while since I’ve read up on the doctrine, but i think there’s an arguable case of the latter here.
The first type of “dilution” is when someone sells red t-shirts with a big golden arches M and the slogan “McShit” or someone makes a porn movie in which a stud in a pink bunny suit is beating a bass drum while fucking endlessly and words roll across the screen saying “He just keeps going and going and going” (of course it should say coming, not going, but that’s another matter). In such cases, McDonalds and Everready might object that their valuable protected brands are being imitated, mocked and harmed. Yea, I know, whatever happened to free speech, but. . . . that’s the law of dilution.
The second type of dilution doesn’t require an unsavory connection. It only requires that someone is using the mark in such a way that people clearly make a connection with the original use of the mark and such unauthorized secondary use, takes away (dilutes) some of that finely cultivated value of the mark, cheapening it.
Yes, whenever the owner of copyright or a protected slogan or mark objects in a case like this they always look stupid, but with all those millions invested, they’re right to at least consider whether the unauthorized activity could potentially diminish the value of their asset.
EDIT: a picture’s worth a thousand words.
Here’s the first type of dilution.
Here’s the second type (fake adidas). You might not think they’re really adidas, but it diminishes the value of adidas’ trademarked three black stripes on a sneaker.
I’ve got one of them. Most cool, especially wearing it into McDonalds to order a Jizburger.
Corn is not meat.
What if there’s just one corn?
[quote=“Mother Theresa”]Actually, while I agree it’s a funny case and it makes the Pork Board look silly, it’s not so absurd that they hired expensive lawyers to fire off the letter. Brands, slogans, trademarks, and so forth are immensely valuable. According to this list, the CocaCola brand is worth $68 billion, the IBM brand is worth $60 billion, etc.
“The other white meat” isn’t the name of a company, but it is a slogan that the Pork Board has invested many millions of dollars in, marketing it, grooming it, cultivating it, using it to try to convince people pork is healthy, so they should buy it. They’ve spent a lot on that slogan and it has great value to them.
When some geek comes along and says “Unicorn meat, the other white meat,” it’s not “trademark infringement” (despite the lawyers’ claim) because it’s highly unlikely anyone would be confused into thinking unicorn meat is actually pork meat, or they came from the same source. But it definitely could be “dilution”, the legal doctrine where someone uses another’s protected mark in an unsavory manner so as to tarnish the mark or simply in such a way that it loses some of its unique and finely-cultivated value. It’s been a while since I’ve read up on the doctrine, but I think there’s an arguable case of the latter here.
The first type of “dilution” is when someone sells red t-shirts with a big golden arches M and the slogan “McShit” or someone makes a porn movie in which a stud in a pink bunny suit is beating a bass drum while fucking endlessly and words roll across the screen saying “He just keeps going and going and going” (of course it should say coming, not going, but that’s another matter). In such cases, McDonalds and Everready might object that their valuable protected brands are being imitated, mocked and harmed. Yea, I know, whatever happened to free speech, but. . . . that’s the law of dilution.
The second type of dilution doesn’t require an unsavory connection. It only requires that someone is using the mark in such a way that people clearly make a connection with the original use of the mark and such unauthorized secondary use, takes away (dilutes) some of that finely cultivated value of the mark, cheapening it.
Yes, whenever the owner of copyright or a protected slogan or mark objects in a case like this they always look stupid, but with all those millions invested, they’re right to at least consider whether the unauthorized activity could potentially diminish the value of their asset.
EDIT: a picture’s worth a thousand words.
Here’s the first type of dilution.
Here’s the second type (fake adidas). You might not think they’re really adidas, but it diminishes the value of adidas’ trademarked three black stripes on a sneaker.
[/quote]
MT’s spot on here, the attorneys even cite “dilution” in their letter.
I’m a little surprised at the OP’s naiive response to this.
Seriously, Counsel, if I were your client, and I’d secured the IP rights to that slogan, and I stumbled across the item on the Internet, I’d sure want to know what you were going to do about it, joke or not.
Which may in fact, be the way this played out in real life, who’s to say?
[quote=“the chief”][quote=“Mother Theresa”]
When some geek comes along and says “Unicorn meat, the other white meat,” it’s not “trademark infringement” (despite the lawyers’ claim).[/quote][/quote]
That’s incorrect. The trademark was not actually used…
first, I understand the intent for even writing a letter in this case: the lawyers are trying to protect the IP. ie one can reasonably argue there’s an association of “new white meat” with “other white meat”. that doesn’t mean I don’t think it’s ridiculous in this case or that perhaps it’s a weak trademark to begin with. (incidentally, i read the pork guys might drop the slogan)
(“white meat” is a descriptive word in ordinary usage as cf. “the other white meat” and so is less distinctive and thus less protection is afforded). Rather, the geeks used “the new white meat”. If they said “the new other white meat” it’d be different. is “white meat” protected or a generic term?
I would add that fair use (of the generic phrase “white meat”) and 1st amendment (this was a parody) would be defenses to dilution.
I think one of my points also was that the Pork Board has been infamous for being overzealous (and maybe they are because the mark is already close to being generic…). Btw, this was a one-off fake ad done on April fool’s day. I disagree that this is a run-of-the-mill trademark case.
also, comparing picture marks to slogans is not the same.
I think my other question is why does a simple cease and desist letter (even done in the name of protect it or lose it scheme) take up 12 pages?
so all in all Chief, I think you missed my point. so who’s the one exhibiting naivete?
How about tofu?