logoalt Hacker News

ikiddyesterday at 8:49 PM3 repliesview on HN

Ah yes, the $15M in lost business Kellogg's suffers from people mistaking toaster waffles for a Chinese food truck business.

Fucking lawyer scum.


Replies

NewsaHackOyesterday at 8:59 PM

It actually looks like they were pretty reasonable here, as they offered money for the company to help rebrand even though they were clearly infringing on their copyright. Of course, there are three sides to every story.

show 3 replies
echelonyesterday at 8:51 PM

It's US law.

If Kellogg doesn't defend their trademark, they lose it.

An amicable middle ground might be for Kellogg to let the business purchase rights for $1, but if that happened it would open up a flood of this.

Kellogg has so much money in that brand recognition, they'd lose far more than $15 million if it became a generic slogan. The $15 million is a token amount to get the small business to abandon its use. Kellogg doesn't want to litigate. They tried several times not to litigate.

I'm sure Kellogg would be happy to pay the business more than the cost of repainting their truck, buying some marketing materials, pay for the trouble, etc. It's easy good will press for Kellogg and the business gets a funny story and their own marketing anecdote. It's cheaper than litigation, too.

show 2 replies
bpodgurskyyesterday at 8:51 PM

> The way trademarks work is that if you don't actively defend them you weaken your rights.

I mean this is the OP sentence, it's not about the food truck, it's about setting a precedent that you don't care, which costs you later when a competing brand starts distributing in a way that can actually confuse consumers.

show 1 reply