ThinkGeek's Best Ever Cease-and-Desist Letter 264
ThinkGeek, sister company to Slashdot, received a meticulously researched (except on one point) 12-page cease-and-desist letter from the National Pork Board. What had the meat lobbyists up in arms was an April Fools product from the TG catalog: Radiant Farms Canned Unicorn Meat, whose copy included the line "the new white meat." The NPB figured this was confusingly similar to their trademarked "the other white meat" (an advertising slogan the pork industry is considering retiring anyway). Geeknet, parent company of Thinkgeek and Slashdot, issued a press release apologizing for any confusion; you can read it on ThinkGeek's site (PDF), because the newswires refused to distribute it for some reason. Oh, and ThinkGeek has no intention of taking down the protected parody.
Good but... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good but... (Score:4, Funny)
Actually, there's a shorter name for those.
Re:Good but... (Score:5, Funny)
i dunno, baconless bacon double cheeseburger doesnt look shorter to me.
Re:Good but... (Score:5, Funny)
It's not got much spam in it...
Re: (Score:2)
Also, hold the bread. Can't do gluten.
Re: (Score:2)
"Double baconator, hold the bacon"?
Burgers I'm waiting for:
1: Spamburger. A thick slice of spam between two beef patties.
2: Gravy-fried buns.
3: Grooved burgers, which can hold a lot more cheese and mayo.
4: Inside-out burger, with patties on the outside and bread on the inside.
Incidentally, I know just the place where you can buy affordable paper napkins wholesale!
Re: (Score:2)
You could probably get a Spamburger somewhere in Hawaii. I understand that they just love SPAM(tm) there.
Re: (Score:2)
Tref?
Re: (Score:2)
How can a dead piece of meat be sad?
Re: (Score:2)
Acronym? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Acronym? (Score:5, Funny)
I thought SPAM stood for Squirrels, Possum, and Muskrat... could be regional...
The Letter, Please... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The first page is posted here http://www.thinkgeek.com/blog/2010/06/officially-our-bestever-cease.html [thinkgeek.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The Letter, Please... (Score:4, Funny)
I'ld like to read a transcript of the phone call where they told them unicords don't exist.
Re:The Letter, Please... (Score:4, Funny)
Son,
Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Yours truly,
Flying Sky Daddy
This trademark has been mocked from day one (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
pretty sure people are red meat
Only if you're native American. I'm not so sure about the rest of us.
Before having a knee-jerk anti-lawyer moment... (Score:5, Informative)
...consider that organizations can lose their trademarks if they don't actively defend them against even vague and doubtful potential infringements. If they let this case slip without issuing a token C&D, it could be cited later by an actual competitor as grounds for permitting their own infringement.
That's not to say that the law isn't stupid, but the proper target for complaints about the stupidity of the law is your local congresscritter, not the lawyers who are just dealing with the laws as they are. These lawyers are just writing letters, not trolling for DUI cases on the sides of city buses.
Re:Before having a knee-jerk anti-lawyer moment... (Score:5, Insightful)
/////.not the lawyers who are just dealing with the laws as they are.
Pardon me, but this is clearly parody. The lawyers ALREADY HAVE LAWS TO TELL THEM TO RESPECT PARODY. They chose to ignore them.
Not only is this a parody, its not even a real product, and the phrase is not the same phrase as "the other white meat."
Playing up the "We're just following the law, ma'am and are powerless to think for ourselves" card is a unconvincing excuse. that empowers organizations like SCO.
Lastly, pork is far from the 'other white meat'. Compared to chicken or turkey its incredibly unhealthy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that " the other white meat(tm)" is a trademarked phrase not a copyrighted phrase so I don't think that parody is a defense, additionally Trademarks are protect it or lose it, so the lawyers really had no choice no matter how ridiculous the infringement was.
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly is confusing the potential consumer in this case? How can he be tricked into buying a fictional product? Its ridiculous to keep defending this action.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't take parody into account with trademarks. It's a touchy subject and you have to send out the C&D even if it is parody for no other than if you don't, then someone else can say, "In this example, they let it slide, therefore they failed to defend their trademark."
By sending the C&D the council covers their ass for the next attempt to infringe on the trademark.
Re: (Score:2)
NO. There is no requirement to be an asshole about a trademark. The phrase is 'defend the trademark' not 'be an asshole sending out hollow legal threats without thinking about it.' If they feel they must do something, they can simply say "we happen to have a similar trademark, we ch
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Contrary to some popular opinions, The Pork Board is not nearly as humorous entity as some are made to believe it is.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Lastly, pork is far from the 'other white meat'. Compared to chicken or turkey its incredibly unhealthy.
From the couple of searches I did, pork is (recently at least) very close to chicken and also has other nutrients in addition:
FOR YEARS CHICKEN has been the white meat preferred by Americans--and for good reason: It's naturally low in fat, fairly tasty (what doesn't it taste like?) and a good source of vitamins and minerals. But a study by Duke University showed that lean pork could be just as effective as chicken in helping to lower LDL ("bad") cholesterol--that's the bad stuff, y'all.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1608/is_8_19/ai_105853400/ [findarticles.com]
How exactly does pork hold its own on the pollo grounds? Mainly because one-third of its saturated fat comes from stearic acid, which does not contribute to increased bad cholesterol levels. But pork is also low in sodium and a good source of potassium, iron, magnesium, zinc, riboflavin, and vitamins B12 and B6.
Pork also packs a significant amount of nutrients in every lean portion. A 3-ounce serving of pork tenderloin is an "excellent" source of protein, thiamin, vitamin B6, phosphorus and niacin, and a "good" source of riboflavin, potassium and zinc, yet contributes only 6 percent of the calories to a 2,000-calorie diet.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/46034.php [medicalnewstoday.com]
Re:Before having a knee-jerk anti-lawyer moment... (Score:5, Informative)
I am an IP lawyer (IAAIPL). From the letter of demand, it appears that the NPB hasn't actually twigged that this is an imaginary product. Therefore even if ThinkGeek has used their trademark, they haven't used it as a trademark - i.e. to indicate the origin of a product - because there is no actual product. (I tried ordering it, it doesn't let you.)
Funnily enough, it might be different if they were shipping something, even if it was just a novelty can of dog food.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Likelihood of consumer confusion as to sponsorship is as good as likelihood of consumer confusion as to source. Then there's the trademark dilution and tarnishment issues. It'd be hard to argue that "the other white meat" is not a famous mark.
One of the better discussions of trademark parody is found in Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co. v. Novak, 836 F. 2d 397 (8th Cir. 1987). Although the fact that the parodist is not in the market is significant, ThinkGeek really does sell a broad range of merchandise. Th
Re:Before having a knee-jerk anti-lawyer moment... (Score:4, Informative)
One of the better discussions of trademark parody is found in Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co. v. Novak, 836 F. 2d 397 (8th Cir. 1987).
But in that case Novak was actually marketing products containing parody slogans. In this case, if I understand the facts correctly, unicorn meat is not actually being offered for sale. So the use of the mark is not a trade mark use and the question of parody would never arise, surely?
Re: (Score:2)
That's the funniest part: they are getting rid of that slogan very soon:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/10/ap/business/main6569347.shtml [cbsnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know someone that works for a company that sends these letters. She's a moron.
If we didn't have jobs for morons to do the rest of us would have to support them with welfare.
Re: (Score:2)
We could always send them off on the "B" Ark, and tell them that a giant space goat was about to eat the Earth...
Re: (Score:2)
We could always send them off on the "B" Ark, and tell them that a giant space goat was about to eat the Earth...
No.... thats how we got into this situation in the first place.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This was probably the most fun they had all year.
Re:Before having a knee-jerk anti-lawyer moment... (Score:5, Informative)
If the intention is to protect their trademark, issuing an exemption (a proceed and permitted letter) is also an acceptable option, and it's a hell of a lot less offensive. These guys are just being jerks.
Re: (Score:2)
woops, forgot this: http://www.darrenbarefoot.com/archives/2007/01/i-got-a-proceed-and-permitted-letter-from-linden-labs.html [darrenbarefoot.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
[C]onsider that organizations can lose their trademarks if they don't actively defend them against even vague and doubtful potential infringements.
I agree with you that we shouldn't have a knee-jerk reaction against lawyers and I would add that there was not even a potential infringement here, the statment "the other white meat," was not being used in trade. Pork's lawyers should have waited till next April to send their complaint.
That's not to say that the law isn't stupid
It isn't stupid enough to pe
Re: (Score:2)
...consider that companies can also lose their trademarks if they abuse them. That's not to say it happens very often, but it's an available remedy.
Interesting (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Funny)
How many people has the California Milk Processor Board sued for the literally hundreds of infringements of their "Got ____?" Trademark?
Dunno. Got Citation?
Protected by Parody law.... (Score:2)
I love it. Since this was an april fools joke they are totally protected by parody law. Stupid stupid lawyers... LOL too funny
the only apology it deserves: (Score:3, Insightful)
Anything else is a waste of bits.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they can't tell the difference between red meat (mammalian) and white meat (fowl), so at least they're consistent.
Re: (Score:2)
They could have just not responded, and then later claimed it got stuck in their "spam" folder.
Stupid lawyers probably wouldn't get it anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Thing is with trademarks you have to defend them or loose them. Parody rules don't matter with trademarks as you still have to show that you are actively trying to protect the mark or slogan. You are much better off to send the C&D because then if it is brought up in a later court case, you can show that you were actively trying to protect the mark.
You are all missing the real issue here! (Score:5, Funny)
Stop the needless killing of endangered species!
Re:You are all missing the real issue here! (Score:4, Funny)
Unicorns are already extinct. I think the idea is that if we kill and eat enough of them we'll get an integer underflow glitch and we'll be back up to 2.1 billion unicorns in the world.
Re:You are all missing the real issue here! (Score:4, Funny)
Yes but if it's a 64bit int we might wind up with 8 quintillion of them - we'd be neck deep or something!
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, as they're completely extinct, if you do manage to catch and eat one, you'd suddenly be knee-deep in 4 billion of them.
That's about enough for a birthday and a Christmas gift for a year for every little girl in the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Great news! Unicorns aren't endangered anymore!
Re: (Score:2)
You realize that you're trying to sell this to the greatest concentration of natural unicorn hunters the world has ever seen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's "Lucky Charms", you insensitive clod!!!
Now Slashdot will get a C&D from General Mills!
Isn't Satire Protected? (Score:4, Insightful)
I thought articles and comedy bits that were clearly satirical were protected under the first amendment. They aren't trying to make money with the white meat phrase except to add to the humor of the article, so what would the damages be?
Re:Isn't Satire Protected? (Score:4, Informative)
I'm an IP lawyer (IAAIPL) and putting aside the fact that this is completely ridiculous, the most obvious legal problem the NPB is going to face is that I don't think ThinkGeek was using the slogan as a trademark (which is a prerequisite for trademark infringement), given that they weren't selling an actual product. Although to be fair, I'm not sure the sale of an imaginary product under trademark law has been considered by a court before...
New slogan? (Score:3, Funny)
Pork: Hardly anybody gets Trichinosis these days!
Pork: Now with Bacon!
Pork: You know you love to do it!
Pork: If you were a Christian, you could be eating it now!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Pork : Not just for Congress anymore!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:New slogan? (Score:4, Funny)
Actually, in Saskatchewan the Pork Producers came up with This slogan:
"Pork. The one you love!"
Unfortunately, they forgot the period on the signs they marketed all over the province...
Finally,,, (Score:5, Funny)
my Nick is relevant to a Slashdot story.
ThinkGeek FTW!
Re: (Score:2)
Parodies of trademarks are not protected (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
can't believe no one has pointed this out yet
-I'm just sayin'
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The way trademark law is, you HAVE to defend it or loose it. And The New White Meat is close enough to warrant a C&D just to show that you are trying to protect the trademark.
It is not copyright. If you don't defend your copyright you don't loose it until the alotted time expires. Same with a patent. But Trademarks are different. There are no set time limits on Trademarks meaning if you do not actively defend them, you loose 'em at any time.
If you are a trademark holder, you can't afford to write a
Re: (Score:2)
I say we loose all trademark laws. Why defend such retardedness?
Oink! (Score:2)
LOLROFL
Can't fix stupid! (Score:2)
Fat Bastard (Score:2)
ThinkGeek should have known better ... (Score:3, Funny)
... and that lawyers always get easily confused (like confusing the word "new" with the word "other"). Numerous surveys have been conducted and found that less than 2% of the public gets these two words confused, while 44% of those on drugs, and 73% of lawyers, will get these two words confused.
The moral of the story is that lawyers always get confused, so you have to always write all text in legalese.
Re:ThinkGeek should have known better ... (Score:4, Funny)
Close, but the true moral of the story is that you are herewith obligated, under statutes pertinent to your jurisdiction, to retain the services of a qualified legal professional, registered in your jurisdiction to prepare, submit, review, approve, publish and otherwise process all documents using terminology carefully worded to minimize any risk of exposure to further recrimination or liability. (at $85 per word or $1500 per hr charged in 6 minutes blocks, whichever is greater)
sign, here, here, and here and initial here
...and here
It's pretty obvious ... (Score:2)
... that there are now THREE kinds of white meat. So the NPB's use of "The Other White Meat" now constitutes fraud and falsification of the facts. Maybe they should retire that term.
In case anyone didn't read Thinkgeek's response... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why did this make the front page? (Score:5, Informative)
Would you have known about the $10 off any $40 order if it wasn't on the front page? ;)
Article reading FTW!
Did they change the submission? (Score:2)
Right now, the very first line of the article reads:
Did the original article neglect to mention this?
It's an important distinction, Sir Lewk, because if it did read this way from the start, then your criticism isn't worthy of you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For a limited time, visitors to ThinkGeek.com can take $10 off any order of $40 or more by using the code PORKBOARD at checkout. The discount applies to merchandise totals and excludes shipping charges, The coupon is good until 6/30/2010 at 11:59PM ET.
LOL at newswires refused to distribute it for some reason
Oh, c'mon! (Score:5, Funny)
Are you deliberately ignoring the fact that Slashdot's audience are rapid unicorn enthusiasts?
Re:Oh, c'mon! (Score:5, Funny)
Are you saying there are slow unicorn enthusiasts?
Re:Oh, c'mon! (Score:5, Funny)
Are you saying there are slow unicorn enthusiasts?
Only impaled ones.
Re:Oh, c'mon! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
As long as the unicorns are neither invisible nor pink that's fine.
All hail His Noodly Appendage!
Re: (Score:2)
(Rapid unicorn) enthusiasts
in that we only like fast unicorns.
I, however, only like Robot Unicorns [adultswim.com]!
Re:Why did this make the front page? (Score:5, Insightful)
Companies get their panties in a bunch. We laugh at them. Film at 11.
It's actually an interesting insight into the bureaucratic mindset of the average idiot.
Pork Boss: Smith! Get over here now! There is some company using a slogan on some food that's really similar to ours!
Smith: Uhhh, boss, I don't think that Unicorn meat really exis...
Pork Boss: What? Smith! NOW! Get our lawyers on the horn! This can't go ahead!
Smith: Uhhhh, right on it boss.
*ringing phone*
Pork Lawyer: WHAT? Oh my, I will draft a letter IMMEDIATELY, this can't go on, who owns Unicorn Meat anyhow? Do they have a strong lobby group?
Smith: Uhhhh, again, I don't think that it's really real, I mean it's unicorn mea...
Pork Lawyer: Nonsense! This is outrageous. I will have them by the balls on this one. The letter will be out in the afternoon mail run! *click* Suzie, send a bill to the Pork Board for a cease and desist. Slap on a few extra hours work too will ya darling? Cheers!
All that can now be heard is the soft sad crying of Common Sense in the corner.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why did this make the front page? (Score:5, Insightful)
That sequence *is* actually common sense, but for everyone independently: the lawyer wants billable work, the manager wants to get ahead by impressing their higher-ups, and Smith isn't really getting paid enough to object strongly.
Extrapolate to millions of people and you get Corporate America.
Re:Why did this make the front page? (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't matter how much you pay an employee...if it's a public company or institution, the employee won't speak up. The only tangible benefit to speaking up is it saves the company legal fees. But those savings do not pass to the individual employee. What does pass to the individual employee who tries to avoid legal action (i.e. risk mitigation) is that if the risk comes to fruition, that person is humiliated for having decided to take the risk. So the employee has to weigh a potential benefit to the company against the risk of his own personal humiliation.
Unless he's an owner and the legal fees are coming out of his own pocket, he'll [almost always] avoid any possibility of personal humiliation, and instead, allow (or even favor) the company taking legal action, no matter how much he gets paid. (CEOs and other high-paid execs of public companies are often the worst offenders, being most concerned about their personal images.)
You just can't beat the economics of spending other people's money.
Re: (Score:2)
Companies get their panties in a bunch to gain free publicity. special on Marketing in the 21st Century at 11:30pm.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bend over? More like a judo toss. Did you even read the subsequent reply Slashdot posted after following them through?