Can A Moron In A Hurry Tell The Difference Between A Hershey Bar And A Couch?
from the yummy-cushions... dept
There are some legal decisions that just make no sense. Gunnar writes in to let us know of a story in Michigan, where a judge has ordered a furniture store to stop using a design that shows a couch being unwrapped from a candy bar. Hershey's sued the furniture company, claiming it violated their trademark on unwrapping chocolate bars:Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: chocolate, couch, furniture, logo, moron in a hurry, trademark
Companies: hershey
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It was Dilution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It was Dilution
http://www.scribd.com/doc/7609498/Decision-Hershey-Art-Van
I have always believed it is far better to actually read a transcript of what one has said than a news account that is no more than hearsay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It was Dilution
No, actually, it was quite necessary. Because this is a ridiculous ruling and deserves to be treated as such.
it's perfectly acceptable to plead alternate theories
We've discussed in the past why dilution doesn't make sense for trademark law. I'm sorry that you disapprove but I am still allowed to have an opinion and speak my mind. Or are you going to find a law against that?
But you prefer to play to your mindless chorus of sycophants rather than actually discuss the merits of the legal theory upon which the decision was made.
Dude, it's a silly lawsuit. This isn't the law review. I just thought the story was amusing.
In the past, I have discussed the merits of the legal theory of dilution, but this was just a fun post. You might want to try looking around for that sense of humor you lost. It's rather helpful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It was Dilution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It was Dilution
Also Hershey is not the only company that wraps chocolate bars, it is only a small player, (both Mars and Cadbury are bigger)so why did some of these other big chocolate bar companies not object? Is it because they are reasonable?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It was Dilution
Hershey is the biggest chocolate seller in the U.S. Mars and Cadbury are bigger candy makers, but Hershey focuses on chocolate.
"Hershey's trying take the focus from the fact they are moving their PA plant to Mexico and putting all those people out of work."
No they're not. They're moving some of their operations to Mexico, and that was announced more than a year ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It was Dilution
Government For The People and By The People, not the wealthy and well off.... Even though the current administration seems to think otherwise.
Google "Dana Perino The American people have input every four years"
So dance, my puppet, dance!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It was Dilution
The dilution argument is still just as ridiculous. Keep in mind, trademark was devised to protect the consumer, not the company. I fail to see how that goal was achieved here. Maybe you're a lawyer for that company or just really like hersheys, I dunno. But in either of those cases, I'd suggest a radical change in your life because you're making mistakes either way. There are better law firms and better chocolate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It was Dilution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It was Dilution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But Mike...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So, wait. Hershey's has a trademark on unwrapping chocolate bars?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about choclate bars and shoes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stupidity in motion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stupidity in motion
Ah, but you're not thinking like a lawyer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corporate Rule
Obviously, the furniture store is not trying to fool people into thinking a couch is a candy bar... and they are not harming the brand - unless seeing that makes you think Hershey is making candy out of furniture (and that makes you not buy hershey bars)
For the fascist defending the ruling - compare this to an 83 year old woman with 3rd degree burns on her genitals caused by coffee served by a corporation who had already received complaints about and paid for injuries caused by their coffee that was waaay too hot.
Funny how people will defend a faceless corporation against their own grandmother.
Fu
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hot Coffee
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Corporate Rule
compare this to an 83 year old woman with 3rd degree burns on her genitals caused by coffee [...] Funny how people will defend a faceless corporation against their own grandmother.
Again, if the product were defective I'd blame McD's. Say, the insulated cup could not withstand the blistering heat, and the bottom melted out thus causing her injury - fine. THAT is corporate liablility.
She took deliberate actions that were directly responsible for her injury. That is, she was complicit in the damage she suffered. That is her fault, and not corporate liability.
It's not about "my grandma", nor "big faceless corporations". It's about who did what to who.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Corporate Rule
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Corporate Rule
She had enough knowledge to know that coffee is hot. She had enough knowledge to know that coffee can burn, maybe not third degree, but she knew enough that it can cause harm. She still then performed an action that increased her chances of injury, knowingly. She may not have known she'd be hurt that much, but she had to know she would get hurt if she spilled coffee on herself. I have little sympathy for that woman. Sometimes you need common sense. If I do something that causes injury, I'm not going to sue because "It cause more injury than I thought it should."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Corporate Rule
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
trademark unwrapping chocolate bars?
Am I in violation of their trademark when I unwrap another brand of chocolate bar?
Are they the only brand of chocolate that's allowed to wrap their bars?
Is chocolate the only thing allowed to be wrapped? I might just get meself confused when my butcher wraps my pork chops in paper. Can I sue Hersey's for not making sure that everything I unwrap is chocolate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wow
Oh and maybe they should get a trademark on everything that gets wrapped in the first place. That way they can sue everyone before anyone unwraps anything. Including Christmas gifts. Then they can sue Christmas, or maybe even a church.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: wow
The honorable judge Rudolph N. Elves presiding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tastes a bit off ... oh, I see it's a couch
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bear in mind that according to the summary, the defence to this charge wasn't "It isn't a Hersheys bar" but "It's a parody". Isn't that an admission that it was deliberately meant to look like a Hersheys bar, and the question is therefore simply is it a legitimate parody or not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: James Gresham, comment
I mean, if I was the furniture company and I paid a laywer to represent me to the fullest extent of the law, could I then get another law firm to sue that first lawyer or law firm for not winning the case after I win in an appeals court?
1) Did the company, or the artist, make use the words, "Like a Hershey's Bar" or was that an independent reference from a newspaper article? If it was the Artist or the newspaper, couldn't Art Vans now sue them for losses? Wow, now Art Vans, the Newspaper, and the art community will all boycott Hersheys, right? Oh, and then everyone else in the world who felt traumatized over this could sue anyone else with a candy wrapper for unwittingly subjecting them to a reminder of this pain.
2) Did the company use the words, "Its a Parody", or did the lawyer? Because either way, it was poor judgement. But still, do people sue SNL? What about the makers of those parody gag gifts that bear far mor resemblence to the actual product?
3) What about Hersheys' exports to other countries? Should I advise my Korean friends to sue Hersheys for dilution if their wrapper here in Korea bears resemblence to a domestic brand? If I did, would I then be sued back in the US for slander? Is it safe to come home next month?
4) And I agree, Hershey's isn't even good chocolate anymore. The other day, I bought a Symphony bar, remembering fondly how Symphony was finer chocolate than Hersheys. I know that its the same brand. Could I have sued Hersheys for false advertising? Actually, I know that I couldn't because Hersheys has that little clause on the paper and foil wrapper still used for those larger bars that I can return a faulty product for a full refund.
I hope Hersheys and Art Van do come across this post.
@Hersheys' Lawyers: Please stop doing damage to the future of the US copyright system, to Hersheys, and to America. Copyrights are here to protect, not destroy. Isn't Krackel a Hershey product? So a red label isn't any better than Brown. What about the yellow background? Can we say, Mr. Goodbar?
@Art Van: Get better legal counsel. Get it before you advertise. Certainly get it before preparing a defense. I am truly sorry you lost. If no one else supports you, I do.
@Congress: Stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Help Advertise
Hersheys should be thanking Art Vans for the free advertisement. Well maybe they think they could get more by sueing. It is the American way now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So now am I supposed to see the error in my ways when I first laid eyes on this article and thought "another stupid judge"? Now I'm supposed to think that this was a carefully thought out, intelligent decision by the judge to believe that because for years people have been eating chocolate bars by unwrapping them first, that now, through legal pixie dust, the trademark has now enlarged? Wow, I wonder what that judge's IQ is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I found nuts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dilution & sycophants
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's no such thing
Sorry it took me so long to post, wasn't in a rush...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lawyers Lawyers Everywhere, but not a gun in site...
The sofa was wrapped like a candy bar. Not like a Hershey's Bar. There are many brands that use the same style wrapping. And the "Brown" color is used on many different brands. The wrapper on Dove bars uses a foil wrapper with a brown paper outside as well, should they sue?
The idea that this is an okay lawsuit because of dilution is asinine. Anyone that thinks copyright or patent lawsuits are for anything other then name brand protection are dilusional. Get a life and stop trying to act like a lawyer. (And if you are one... Step into traffic.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lawyers Lawyers Everywhere, but not a gun in site...
This is a trademark matter that does not involve either patent or copyright law. It involves trademark law, an entirely different matter.
BTW, no one is saying that this suit is "great" and chock full of "merit". What they are saying, myself included, is that if one wants to write about a court decision, the best source for information is the decision itself...and not some blog written by someone who most certainly never bothered to read the decision.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Confused
Seriously, I had thought Hershey had abandoned that wrapper design when they switched their process to all plastic that you need a pair of scissors to open. When I called them up and told them of my difficulty in opening the tough plastic, they told me it saved them millions of dollars a year in expenses, and insinuated they didn't need my business, so I canceled my standing weekly order for a 24 count box from my local retail outlet each week.
Maybe I ought to sue Hershey for interfering with my RIGHT to open their chocolate bar easily using the design they claim they still have the rights to, but have actually abandoned, unless some furniture company wants to unload a few couches.
Hershey USED to be a good company with a good product. Now they are a BAD company with a good product.
Apple, are you listening?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can A Moron Tell The Difference Between A Hershey Bar And A Couch?
But more importantly, what's 1,000 Pennsylvanian lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?
Answer: A good start.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can A Moron Tell The Difference Between A Hershey Bar And A Couch?
But more importantly, what's 1,000 Pennsylvanian lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?
Answer: A good start.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hershey Highway
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's quite possibly the funniest sentence that I've ever read...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is crazt
No one could mistake a furniture truck for a candy truck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait. WHAT!?!?!?!?!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Still Legal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmm...
1) I agree with the above poster that the van company had terrible legal counsel. The judge basically agreed with them in his statements, but then ruled against them? What??
2) How in the words is unwrapping a bar of chocolate an extension of trademark or however the judge worded it? Does this mean that opening *anything* can be an "extension"? If Apple started running ads showing a Mac being unwrapped, could they take ownership of a trademarked "computer being pulled out of a box"?
I'm sure that's not what the founding fathers had in mind when they created the trademark and copyright system?
And, again, how does allowing Hershey to stop a van company from showing a sofa "innovate" or "promote the science"?
3) Where was this case heard? Why do I get the feeling it was in Hershey's home town of (surprise) Hershey, PA? And who's the biggest employer in Hershey? I'm be willing to guess it's Hershey. And who has the most money and the biggest team of attorneys in the town of Hershey?
Can anyone say "not even close to a fair trial"? I hope the van's legal team appeals because of this.
Though do they have the money to file an appeal and continue the fight? Or is it the usual story of the defendant giving up because they can't afford any more money on the court case?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]