If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(SeattlePI)   File-mor-copyright-lawsuits   (seattlepi.com) divider line 14
    More: Interesting, Montpelier  
•       •       •

6327 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Apr 2013 at 9:41 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-04-23 09:49:44 AM  
3 votes:
WTF people.  First of all, kale sucks so whoever wants to eat more of it, go right ahead.  Second, how is this even infringing on Chick-fil-A ?  Unlike Chick-fil-A, the guy uses the correct spelling of "more" and follows it with something totally unrelated to chicken.  So does the patent/trademark office now restricts the usage of all "eat more <insert food/non-food item>" since it might be confused with Chick-fil-A?  The stupidity hurts...

kwinofnothing.files.wordpress.com
2013-04-23 10:01:08 AM  
2 votes:

Tom_Slick: PsyLord: WTF people.  First of all, kale sucks so whoever wants to eat more of it, go right ahead.  Second, how is this even infringing on Chick-fil-A ?  Unlike Chick-fil-A, the guy uses the correct spelling of "more" and follows it with something totally unrelated to chicken.  So does the patent/trademark office now restricts the usage of all "eat more <insert food/non-food item>" since it might be confused with Chick-fil-A?  The stupidity hurts...

[kwinofnothing.files.wordpress.com image 500x282]

The problem is, if they don't at least try to defend the Trademark they lose it all together, so if they didn't go after this guy, then they couldn't go after Burger King if they used Chickens to say Eat More Beef.  Trademark Law leaves it to the Trademark owner to enforce the Trademark, if a Trademark is not enforced they lose it.


From what I understand he doesn't sell food, so I don't see how in the world this should have any impact on him. Can people not be judiciously reasonable?

Maybe he should just make T-shirts with a Cow on it that says Suk My Balz U Corporat Nazi Asshatz. I would buy one of those.
2013-04-23 12:31:17 PM  
1 votes:
Or, for example:
24.media.tumblr.com
2013-04-23 12:25:13 PM  
1 votes:
As I understand it, the holder of a trademark must defend it not only against those who infringe upon it, but also those who come up with slogans or sayings that may be considered similar that could "reasonably" be confused with their own such that it could be seen that the holder may be endorsing or associated with the allegedly infringing party's product(s).

The key word here being "reasonably."  And in this case I really don't see there being a reasonable chance that anyone who doesn't think it's the Kale Guy's shirts are the ones misspelled would confuse this guy's T-shirts with having anything to do with Chick-Fil-A.  CFA can easily trademark their slogan because of its particularly unique spelling, which I think everyone associates with the cows holding up the signs that spell it out.  But simply saying "Eat More <something>" is pretty much just a direct and rather generic suggestion that shouldn't even be trademarkable, never mind infringing.

In summary, Chick-Fil-A should eat mor dikin.
2013-04-23 11:26:53 AM  
1 votes:
Dazed and Confused did it 1993. The chicken campaign started in 1995.

img.photobucket.com

/That movie was set in 1976, 17 years before the movie was released. It was released 20 years ago. I feel old.
2013-04-23 10:22:50 AM  
1 votes:
Subby, this has nothing to do with copyright. You could have been clued in by the first sentence of the article, which says:
A Vermont folk artist who built a T-shirt business around the phrase "eat more kale" says the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has given him a "preliminary no" in his effort to protect it after the Chick-fil-A restaurant chain complained.

The Copyright Office is entirely different, and is, in fact, not even in the same state.
2013-04-23 10:17:27 AM  
1 votes:
www.diabetesmine.com
Predates Chik-Fil-A
2013-04-23 10:13:21 AM  
1 votes:

bdub77: From what I understand he doesn't sell food, so I don't see how in the world this should have any impact on him. Can people not be judiciously reasonable?


He is advocating eating a food product so it applies, if he had made a shirt saying "Eat More Rocks" then it could be considered parody and it would be legal.

Clemkadidlefark: Chik-fil-a owns the copyright to Eat More Kale?


Trademark not copyright completely different ball game.
2013-04-23 10:09:54 AM  
1 votes:

bdub77: I_Am_Weasel: I'm curious.  Is there anyone here who'd buy a Eat More Kale shirt at $25 (plus free shipping!)?

Me, because I think Chik-Fil-A is overstepping its bounds. He didn't spell More wrong, for one.

I've gotta side in the favor of good spelling in this one.


No (my god I can't believe I am defending Chik-Fil-A) when it comes to trademarking sayings the saying itself must be unique, they could not Trademark "Eat Chicken" because it is a common saying so they Trademarked "Eat Mor Chikin."  The "Eat More" is the unique phrase.
2013-04-23 09:57:02 AM  
1 votes:

I_Am_Weasel: I'm curious.  Is there anyone here who'd buy a Eat More Kale shirt at $25 (plus free shipping!)?


Me, because I think Chik-Fil-A is overstepping its bounds. He didn't spell More wrong, for one.

I've gotta side in the favor of good spelling in this one.
2013-04-23 09:55:45 AM  
1 votes:

PsyLord: WTF people.  First of all, kale sucks so whoever wants to eat more of it, go right ahead.  Second, how is this even infringing on Chick-fil-A ?  Unlike Chick-fil-A, the guy uses the correct spelling of "more" and follows it with something totally unrelated to chicken.  So does the patent/trademark office now restricts the usage of all "eat more <insert food/non-food item>" since it might be confused with Chick-fil-A?  The stupidity hurts...

[kwinofnothing.files.wordpress.com image 500x282]


The problem is, if they don't at least try to defend the Trademark they lose it all together, so if they didn't go after this guy, then they couldn't go after Burger King if they used Chickens to say Eat More Beef.  Trademark Law leaves it to the Trademark owner to enforce the Trademark, if a Trademark is not enforced they lose it.
2013-04-23 09:48:42 AM  
1 votes:
Can you really copyright the phrase "eat more (food type)"? Didn't Trump fail when he tried that with "you're fired"?
2013-04-23 09:48:34 AM  
1 votes:
Guy is actually a relative and a cool dude. not a hipster surprisingly, although he is fond of that train conductor hat.  Sucks his little micro biz is getting shiat on by copyright law.


/ive got a few EMK shirts myself, worth the price if it keeps him afloat
/csb
2013-04-23 09:45:53 AM  
1 votes:
Chick-fil-A will drop the suit as soon as they realize the shirt doesn't actually say "Eat More Male".
 
Displayed 14 of 14 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report