I can see exact wording of a product as infringement but not some of the bottles of e liquid shown in the article.
If i want to make an ejuice with the words apple smacks in it i will..The word apple is not a copy write, neither is smacks...Even putting the 2 together is not an infringement.
Perhaps the art work is what they are pissing about but change one color or one design and its game over for general mills...People will still know what the e juice company is marketing flavor wise
What I see is that trademarks are not absolute. I think the response we are seeing and will see results from the disparity between cost of defending against a trademark infringement claim and the cost of simply making the infringement claim go away. The simple fact that ejuice is not sold on the cereal aisle in the grocery store could carry enough weight to defeat an infringement claim ... of course, that will depend on the quality of the defense and the opinion of a judge.EIGHT FACTORS FOR LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
To analyze whether a particular situation has developed the requisite "likelihood of confusion," courts have generally looked at the following eight factors:
- the similarity in the overall impression created by the two marks (including the marks' look, phonetic similarities, and underlying meanings);
- the similarities of the goods and services involved (including an examination of the marketing channels for the goods);
- the strength of the plaintiff's mark;
- any evidence of actual confusion by consumers;
- the intent of the defendant in adopting its mark;
- the physical proximity of the goods in the retail marketplace;
- the degree of care likely to be exercised by the consumer; and
- the likelihood of expansion of the product lines.
Missed this earlier, but good post. My point is that adults may certainly like Cinnamon Toast Crunch and Froot Loops, but you don't see TV commercials for those products on the nightly news, you see them on cartoon channels. Thus, they're marketed to kids, and they pick up market share when kids' parents eat them or kids who grew up on them become adults and continue to like them. But kids are undeniably the target of the marketing.Are adults not supposed to like cinnamon toast crunch and froot loops and all those sweet sugary cereals just because were over 18...I know i do but, i dont see the copy right infringement here.
...snip...
If i want to make an ejuice with the words apple smacks in it i will..The word apple is not a copy write, neither is smacks...Even putting the 2 together is not an infringement.
Perhaps the art work is what they are pissing about but change one color or one design and its game over for general mills...People will still know what the e juice company is marketing flavor wise
The products are being advertised on adult vaping sites and inside stores. All be it some underage have access to places when mommy and daddy arent around but what 10yr old or 16yr old has a debit card to order this stuff?
I dont see it targeting kids...well maybe i do..the big ones like us who like the stuff.
Apple smacks is a general mills cereal name?General Mills is pissed cuz vape shops are profiting because they are using General MIlls names and images to sell something and GM gets nothing for it but a bad rep.
Think about this. A person completely uninformed about vaping and never smoked etc. See someone with a bottle of Juice Labeled Capt Crunch. It is reasonable that a person like this MAY think this Juice is sold, produced or endorsed by the cereal company.
False. If they can prove there may be a mix up by a consumer it's still infringement. Changing a few letters around doesn't void infringement. Froot loops and fruit loops are extremely close in that regard. Second, a picture of said cereal on the label with a name like Froot loops is infringement.Fruit loops isnt one either But "froot loops" is
Theres similarity but not the same...therefore no infringemnt.
False. If they can prove there may be a mix up by a consumer it's still infringement. Changing a few letters around doesn't void infringement. Froot loops and fruit loops are extremely close in that regard. Second, a picture of said cereal on the label with a name like Froot loops is infringement.
Let's say you make starburst, strbrst with a picture of a fruit chew on it is in fact infringement, since it could be assumed staebursts makes or endorses the product and that company makes profit from it without the owners consent, you are using their intellectual property to sell a product. It's infringement. Same thing with the Cana clones.... It's a close name to be confused with Hana.
They also sent cease and desist letters to places who were selling without a logo. I forget which shop but the could even sell their non logo versions.Hana sued for the logo only not the name.
When people used Chana and cana for a 30watt aluminum box with no logo they were OK.
It was the mom & pop vendors who had "Hana Clone" and a picture of a 30watt aluminum box with the Hana logo who got sued.
When you go to wal mart and buy generic cereal you see the box and the name and you can tell the exact cereal they are copying so I don't know why that wouldn't work for eliquid too.
As long as they aren't using the exact name and logo as a real cereal.
I tried touching on the subject here.
I even put it in "You mad bro?" ahead of time figuring it would end up there eventually anyway:
http://vapingunderground.com/thread...-we-support-really-this-fucking-stupid.88180/
They also sent cease and desist letters to places who were selling without a logo. I forget which shop but the could even sell their non logo versions.
If it can be easily mistaken by a consumer it is infringement. Elev8vape got one for referring it ad a Cana, with photos of non logo versions (did originally have stock original photos though)
Also fruit circles and golden puffs are far from fruit loops and smacks, respectively...
You are 100% factually incorrect. Your belief that in order to infringe, it must be an "exact copy", is simply untrue. Plus in general, I just can't stand whining and pity parties about others' accomplishments.
If you're a "little guy" it's prolly because you chose to be one through a lifelong lack of motivation.
The success of a lawsuit to stop the infringement turns on whether the defendant's use causes a likelihood of confusion in the average consumer.
...just like @CurlyxCracker said
Link
PS... We ain't China.
Second graf answers the first - different copyright laws in China, which is why mod manufacturers copy one another (including logos) with impunity.snip...
If this was the case, why isnt the first ego battery company suing all the others as they all pretty much look alike...same battery pretty much...they all have a push button and now 510 connectors...Shrugs...You can say the same now for box mods and almost any tank and rda.
Maybe since these products are all mostly made in china they cant sue each other and thats the reason but then again why doesnt china sue america for using buttons to fire a mod or something that uses an 18650 battery...Maybe the lcd display showing watts and ohms.
snip
Those packages are designed to make it perfectly clear that the product inside is a knockoff and not the actual brand. They're named similar to make that connection, but the naming is off just enough to let the customer know what they're imitating, while the package looks completely different.The save a lot grocery store in my area sells generic almost everything..Capn crunch is Croco crunch...froot loops is Fruity Rings....As long as they arent using the EXACT DUPLICATE of PICTURING and NAME its not infringement.
So an e juice named frooty rings or Kaptain Krunch is something so similar that the average consumer cant tell the difference between that and actual cereal you eat?..lol.Second graf answers the first - different copyright laws in China, which is why mod manufacturers copy one another (including logos) with impunity.
Those packages are designed to make it perfectly clear that the product inside is a knockoff and not the actual brand. They're named similar to make that connection, but the naming is off just enough to let the customer know what they're imitating, while the package looks completely different.
To prove infringement you'd only have to make the case that a consumer could reasonably be duped into thinking they were buying a product made by the owner of the copyright or trademark - using a slightly altered name with a similar font, color scheme, and graphics is a strong case, if we're talking about only a similar name but otherwise completely different packaging the case gets weaker, but a strong legal team could still argue the issue against a weaker one.
I'm going grocery shopping tomorrow, I'll take some pics of legit brands versus knockoffs, and we'll see how many folks here can tell the difference...
I didn't find any J. Higgs cereal in a quick googling of "J. Higgs Cereal," but I did find this:Ive always mistaken E liquid for actual cereal humans consume and digest then shit out....I guess some likelihood of confusion.
J. HIGGS brand of cereal...look it up to see what i mean...They are either kissing general mills ass or found these loopholes you dont read about while "google'ing" copy right infringements and reading what that says.
Whats the pity party and whining thing about?..and the little guys "choose" to be through lack of motivation?
This is the kind of branding I've been talking about - same font, same color scheme, same graphics...if I was an uninformed regular Joe, this bottle might make me wonder whether General Mills had started making e-liquid...This here is just stupid.
These people need to be run out of the vape community.
View attachment 21907
This is the kind of branding I've been talking about - same font, same color scheme, same graphics...if I was an uninformed regular Joe, this bottle might make me wonder whether General Mills had started making e-liquid...
Oh yes! I agree! I misunderstood what you were referring to by the generic cereal thing. I thought you meant they were using names like "froot loops". But yes, I completely agree! You can do the same with e liquid! Fruity bits or something for a fruity pebbles shouldn't be an issue infringement wise. But I also think that these cereals and other flavors should remove the "pictures that resemble a cereal box or whatever in the particular case of whatever flavor". Like I said before I love a fruity pebbles vape, one of my top 3 actually. I'm not saying adults don't enjoy these flavors, but that particular cereal is marketed to children. And I feel it does more harm than good. Why give MORE ammunition to those who want to take my vape away??Right, but there is no reason vendors can't do what the generic cereal companies are doing.
Vapers aren't (well, i'm not sure after seeing some of those labels) stupid.
They will figure out what they mean.
Plus how hard would it be to type a flavor profile under the eliquid they are selling.
That bugs the hell out of me.
I saw a juice named "Heisenburg" I'm thinking what the fuck does this taste like?
If I vape it am i going to be awake for 3 days or something?
If I'm going to buy something named "Crystal Blue Persuasion" I would like to know what it's going to taste like first.
How about the more recent "blurred lines" suit? That was in fact won....I recall now that lawsuit against vanilla ice...it wasnt lyrics but music notes...One key off of copying a david bowie riff..That one key difference is what was ruled not infringement...Naming something Fruity pebbles or even FROOTY ROCKS is in fact not "FROOTY PEBBLES"and wont be won in court on basis of infringement...the fact is its not against the law to make something similar...It just cant be an exact duplicate of something and then take credit for it.
If this was the case, why isnt the first ego battery company suing all the others as they all pretty much look alike...same battery pretty much...they all have a push button and now 510 connectors...Shrugs...You can say the same now for box mods and almost any tank and rda.
Maybe since these products are all mostly made in china they cant sue each other and thats the reason but then again why doesnt china sue america for using buttons to fire a mod or something that uses an 18650 battery...Maybe the lcd display showing watts and ohms.
General mills has no case and its a scare tactic by some rich billionair snobs who know these little guys cant pay to fight it for 10 years down the road.
Ok no link needed. Thank you @Shark Vape!You are 100% factually incorrect. Your belief that in order to infringe, it must be an "exact copy", is simply untrue. Plus in general, I just can't stand whining and pity parties about others' accomplishments.
If you're a "little guy" it's prolly because you chose to be one through a lifelong lack of motivation.
The success of a lawsuit to stop the infringement turns on whether the defendant's use causes a likelihood of confusion in the average consumer.
...just like @CurlyxCracker said
Link
PS... We ain't China.
It's not that we eat it. The confusion could cause a consumer to believe general Mills endorsed the product, therefore generating sales based on the endorsement.Ive always mistaken E liquid for actual cereal humans consume and digest then shit out....I guess some likelihood of confusion.
J. HIGGS brand of cereal...look it up to see what i mean...They are either kissing general mills ass or found these loopholes you dont read about while "google'ing" copy right infringements and reading what that says.
Whats the pity party and whining thing about?..and the little guys "choose" to be through lack of motivation?
See previous responseSo an e juice named frooty rings or Kaptain Krunch is something so similar that the average consumer cant tell the difference between that and actual cereal you eat?..lol.
China will reverse engineer and infringe all day. It's what they do! These are both US companies.This Topic sooooo reminds me of the continuing Mod controversy of "Clones VS Authentic".....its the same deal
Plus how hard would it be to type a flavor profile under the eliquid they are selling.
That bugs the hell out of me.
I saw a juice named "Heisenburg" I'm thinking what the fuck does this taste like?
If I vape it am i going to be awake for 3 days or something?
If I'm going to buy something named "Crystal Blue Persuasion" I would like to know what it's going to taste like first.
Perfect example. Blatant infringement!This here is just stupid.
These people need to be run out of the vape community.
View attachment 21907
Which proves infringement, btw. This is actually the exact form of what I'm talking about. You and I know it's not but I'm not an "average consumer". I'm not new to this. But Joe smo sees it and says "Oh I love that brand/flavor cereal", infringement.General Mills is pissed cuz vape shops are profiting because they are using General MIlls names and images to sell something and GM gets nothing for it but a bad rep.
Think about this. A person completely uninformed about vaping and never smoked etc. See someone with a bottle of Juice Labeled Capt Crunch. It is reasonable that a person like this MAY think this Juice is sold, produced or endorsed by the cereal company.
There's uninformed, then stupid, then fucking stupid, then blatant idiocy. That juice maker falls into the blatant idiot category. It's these pricks that make vaping advocacy difficult.This here is just stupid.
These people need to be run out of the vape community.
View attachment 21907
If General Mills fails to protect their trademarks, who do you think will get sued
the first time an irresponsible parent's kid finds it, drinks some, and ends up in the hospital with nic poisoning.
Will daddy dumbass be held responsible? Nah, he's broke.
Will the juice maker be held responsible? Not a chance.
General Mills has the deep pockets, and America has an endless supply of brainless jurors
always willing to buy into the 'But I'm just a poor victim' bullshit used to generate inappropriate sympathies.
'Merca!!!
This as well!If General Mills fails to protect their trademarks, who do you think will get sued
the first time an irresponsible parent's kid finds it, drinks some, and ends up in the hospital with nic poisoning.
Will daddy dumbass be held responsible? Nah, he's broke.
Will the juice maker be held responsible? Not a chance.
General Mills has the deep pockets, and America has an endless supply of brainless jurors
always willing to buy into the 'But I'm just a poor victim' bullshit used to generate inappropriate sympathies.
'Merca!!!