Consumerist: Trademarks

T-Mobile C And D's Blog For Using Magenta

Ben Popken — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 19:44:12 EDT

Citing trademark infringement concern, T-mobile is demanding that gadget blog site Engadget Mobile stop using magenta in its logo. In a letter posted sent to Engadget, T-Mobile pronounced, "Based on the different character of the goods and services offered by the Deusche Telekom Group and Weblogs, we assume that it is in the best interest of both of our entities to ensure that the particular services can be clearly separated and that consumers are not confused..." And it's not an early April Fool's joke, they say. It's not totally unreasonable, there is precedent for this sort of thing. Like the time T-Mobile sued a small a book-on-demand-publisher for having magenta in its logo.

Deutsche Telekom / T-Mobile demands Engadget Mobile discontinue using the color magenta [Engadget] (Thanks to Tristan!)

Plastic Surgery Company Sues Consumer Site For Negative Customer Reviews

Chris Walters — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 08:49:47 EST

Lifestyle Lift claims it's a "minor one-hour procedure with major results," but a lot of customers who have paid for the procedure have been left unhappy, and they've consequently posted reviews about it on a plastic surgery review blog called RealSelf. Lifestyle Lift has sued RealSelf, claiming trademark infringement, and now RealSelf has countersued, claiming Lifestyle Lift padded RealSelf's site with shill reviews.

Santa Clara University School of Law professor Eric Goldman, who has advised RealSelf on the case, posts about the issue on his personal blog:

No matter how many times I see it—and in the Internet era, I see it all too frequently—I always shake my head in disappointment and frustration when a company uses trademark law to lash out against unflattering consumer reviews. To these companies, trademark law is a cure-all tonic for their marketplace travails, and trademark doctrine is so plastic and amorphous that defendants have some difficulty mounting a proper defense. As a result, all too frequently, the threat of a trademark lawsuit causes the intermediary to capitulate and excise valuable content from the Internet.

In its answer, RealSelf goes on the offensive and alleges that Lifestyle Lift directly or indirectly posted shill reviews to the Lifestyle Lift discussion, thereby breaching RealSelf's user agreement. Off the top of my head, I can't think of another lawsuit where the message board operator sued a company for shill postings, so I think this case may be breaking important new legal ground.

Interestingly, the second result of a Google search for "Lifestyle Lift" is a highly suspicious site titled "INFOMERCIAL SCAMS - LIFESTYLE LIFT COMPLAINTS," which despite its title is incredibly pro-Lifestyle Lift, and which shares the same general complaint—"competing doctors are trashing Lifestyle Lift"—as the lawsuit (PDF) against RealSelf.

We're having a hard time believing that "INFOMERCIAL SCAMS - LIFESTYLE LIFT COMPLAINTS" is an authentic product of a concerned consumer, which makes us even more curious about RealSelf's counterclaim that Lifestyle Lift astroturfed on the RealSelf site:

We believe they have violated our terms of use by posing as patients posting reviews on our site, which is misleading and unfair to our community. These sort of fabricated posts threaten our community's trust in us. We have no choice but to challenge these actions.

Ooo, ooo, can we sue suspected astroturfers too, Ben?

"Lifestyle Lift Tries to Use TM Law to Shut Down User Discussions; Website Countersues for Shilling—Lifestyle Lift v. RealSelf" [Eric Goldman - Technology & Marketing Law Blog]

(Photo: Warner Bros.)

Pillsbury has told a New York food co-op ...

Chris Walters — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 15:28:09 EST

Pillsbury has told a New York food co-op to stop using the phrase "bake-off" because they own it. Pillsbury coined the phrase back in 1949 (according to this unverifiable web source), and then trademarked it in the early 1970s (according to another). Now you know. (Thanks to Sarah!)

Starbucks To Sue Small Michigan Coffee Shop For Trademark Infringement

Meg Marco — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 12:17:52 EST

Better not use a green circle for your coffee shop logo because Starbucks has lawyers and they'll sue ya. Conga Coffee & Tea, a small two-store operation in Michigan, is being threatened with a lawsuit because their logo bears "striking resemblance" to Starbucks' famous mermaid logo. At least that's what Starbucks says.

According to the Detroit Free Press, Starbucks claims that the Conga logo is "likely to cause consumers to think that Conga is an authorized licensee of Starbucks."

Conga's customers aren't confused.

"It says 'Conga' right there on the sign," Denise Reedy, 41, said as she sipped a German chocolate latte at the Mt. Clemens shop Thursday. "There's not much chance I'm going to get confused."

The owner says he isn't trying to copy Starbucks, and that the logo has always been the same:

Dregiewicz said Starbucks' worries that he is trying to emulate the chain are ironic."Our customers hate their coffee," said Dregiewicz, 51, who has owned the 11-year-old Mt. Clemens Conga since February. "My sign is round and green and always has been. It's not even the same shade of green as theirs."

So far, 250 customers have signed a petition in Dregiewicz's shop in hope that it will convince Starbucks that Macomb County residents know the difference between the coffeehouses.

If it really took Starbucks 11 years to notice the resemblance, how striking can it be?

Shop's logo bull's-eye for Starbucks lawyers [Detroit Free Press via Starbucks Gossip]

Agassi Sues Target Over Unauthorized Flip-Flops

Meg Marco — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:49:50 EDT

Andre Agassi is suing Target for slapping his name on a pair of brown men's flip-flops without his permission, says the AP.

Agassi Enterprises Inc. says it told Target the shoes violated its trademark, but continued to see them on store shelves and on-line—even after Target said it would pull the item. Target says it is trying to relabel the flip-flops and that it never marketed the shoes under Agassi's name.

"It may have been missed in a few stores, which prompted this lawsuit," Target said.

The lawsuit alleges that Target sold over $600,000 worth of fake Agassi sandals and is seeking triple that amount in damages because the infringement was "was of an intentional, willful and wanton nature." Scandalous. Hey, Target, look at it this way— at least the flip-flops didn't scar anyone's feet.

Return shot [Sports Illustrated]
(Photo:TigerPuppala)

MiracleGro Sues Sellers Of "Worm Poop" For Trademark Infringement

Meg Marco — Thu, 24 May 2007 11:36:33 EDT

TerraCycle a small, not yet profitable, organic fertilizer company based in lovely Trenton, New Jersey is being sued for trademark infringement and false advertising by the manufacturers of MiracleGro. The complaint stems from TerraCycle's use of the colors yellow and green in their packaging. TerraCycle sells organic liquefied "worm poop" packaged in donated plastic soda bottles. Scott's is a $2.7 billion dollar company, according to the Wall Street Journal.

The whole lawsuit seems rather silly to us. Would consumers really think that MiracleGro would sell something labeled "Worm Poop" in what is quite obviously an old Sprite bottle? TerraCycle is claiming that the lawsuit is groundless because so many other manufacturers use yellow and green in their packaging. They also refuse to turn over test results that extol the benefits of liquid worm poop to MiracleGro, because MiracleGro refuses to turn their test results over to TerraCycle.

For more info on the lawsuit, TerraCycle has set up a website. If that seems biased, we're sorry. Scott's, makers of MiracleGro, haven't yet set up their own anti-TerraCycle website. Perhaps this is due to all the business that worm crap in soda bottles is taking away from them. They just can't afford a 10th grader to set up an account on Blogger. You can, however, read their complaint on TerraCycle's site should that be your desire. —MEGHANN MARCO

TerraCycle sued by Scotts Miracle-Gro [SuedByScotts via AdviceGoddess]
(Photo: TerraCycle)

Tan Hill Inn 1, KFC 0: KFC Drops Legal Action Against Tiny British Pub

Meg Marco — Mon, 14 May 2007 13:38:18 EDT

Only a few days after confirming that legal action would proceed against the tiny Tan Hiill Inn for the use of the trademarked term "Family Feast" on their once-a-year Christmas menu, KFC has changed its tiny chicken-sized mind.

From the Daily Mail:

Now a spokeswoman for KFC GB Ltd has said no further action would be taken against the pub.
She added: "KFC has to protect its trademarks against those who seek to trade off its brand.

"KFC has spoken to Ms Daly at the Tan Hill Inn and confirmed that it will not take this case any further.

"This means that Ms Daly can continue to use the phrase 'Family Feast' on the pub's Christmas menu. It's an unusual situation that has been blown out of all proportion."

Ms Daly said: "They have very kindly said we can continue using the name. Common sense has prevailed. I'm very relieved and ecstatic.

"I'm not going to need my boxing gloves anymore. I've invited KFC to come here and have a meal and shake hands."

See, that's how things work. When KFC sends you a threatening legal letter, you should "take it very seriously." When it results in bad publicity, then it's "been blown out of all proportion." See the difference? —MEGHANN MARCO

KFC backs down in legal challenge against country pub [Daily Mail]
(Photo: Daily Mail)

PREVIOUSLY: KFC Claims Trademark Infringement Over Tiny English Pub's "Family Feast"

Starbucks Soon To Equal Coffee?

consumerist.com — Wed, 03 May 2006 08:01:53 EDT

Over at Branding Post, we saw this quote about a grim dystopian future in which the word coffee no longer exists: when you pendulously breasted IHOP waitress emerges in a puff of brown cigarette smoke from the kitchens to demand your order, you won't ask for a cup of coffee. You'll ask for a Starbucks.

(Starbuck's) planned to raise hot coffee prices in the fall and wanted to use the iced summer drinks to help consumers become accustomed to the $2.60 price. Starbuck's is always thinking at least two moves ahead, which is why some analysts have suggested that someday 'Starbuck's' will be a synonym for coffee the way Jello is a synonym for gelatin and Kleenex is a synonym for facial tissue

What sort of idiot analysts are these? Why would that be a good thing for Starbucks? Jello and Kleenex are constantly trying to push the Sisyphean boulder of their own branding success back up the slope before it slides into common usage and they lose their trademark. In fact, Starbucks sues companies that even trivially violate their trademarks (see DoubleShot Coffee)... you can't imagine their ominous corporate strategy is to make their trademark the common use term for a cup of joe the world over.

The Branding Post entry ends with this musing: "Before you scoff, think how big a bet you would have made, back in the day, that people would eagerly hand over a five-dollar bill for a cup of coffee, put a tip in jar on the counter and not have change left over to feed the parking meter." What day was that? The day before people were easily influenced idiot buffoons? Sorry, we weren't alive. Was anyone?

Jello=gelatin, Kleenex=facial tissue, Starbuck's=coffee? Maybe not yet, but...

Coke Stole Slogan, Claims Cricket-Cola

popkin — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 12:09:47 EDT

A small soda company is suing Coca-Cola for trademark infringement. And they're wrong.

Cricket Cola's tagline is "happiness in a bottle" and has been using the phrase for the past 22 months.

In unveiling its latest campaign, "The Coke Side of Life," the marketer described its concept as aiming to demonstrate how Coke is akin to "happiness in a bottle." From what we can tell, this took place in a press release. Coke claims to not have used the phrase in any advertising.

A statement in a press release isn't trademark infringement and Cricket Cola, is, as Coke said in a statement, using this as an, "opportunity to gain publicity and to create negative press around our campaign and brand."

Cricket Cola is a gourmet soda made with green tea, kola nut and cane suga brewed by a bunch of whiney pants who should spend less time threatening to file frivolous lawsuits and more time coming up with creative ideas to actually market their product and not just their attitude.

"Tiny Cricket Cola Aims Legal Slingshot at Coke" [AdAge via AdRag]