Olive Garden Apologizes To Allofgarden.com, Blames IP Enforcement Bot For Legal Threat
from the mea-cappelini dept
You will hopefully recall the recent story we did on Darden, parent company of the Olive Garden restaurant chain, sending a legal threat letter to the man behind allofgarden.com, a site that reviews Olive Garden dishes, because the internet is a strange, strange place. At issues, according to the threat letter, was that allofgarden.com named Olive Garden in metatags in its reviews of the dishes, which you should already know is nothing remotely resembling trademark infringement or infringement upon any other types of intellectual property, either. With that in mind, Vincent Malone replied to the threat letter in a manner both well-informed of his own rights and one which demonstrated just how funny Malone is. After refusing to comply with the requests in the letter, he demanded a reply within nine days in limerick form.
His demands were not met exactly, but Darden has now responded to Malone, apologizing for the letter, promising no further action would be taken against him, blaming an IP enforcement bot for the letter, and sending him a $50 gift card. Sadly, none of this was delivered in the limerick form Malone had requested.
As apologies for this sort of thing go, this one is pretty good. It was apparently in further conversations outside of this letter that Malone was told of the bot, which may well be true but only demonstrates that too many companies play loose with the way they seek to enforce their rights. This story ends on a positive note only because Malone decided not to immediately back down out of fear of a much larger company, after all. It doesn't take too much imagination to suppose that there could be, or perhaps have been, instances we don't know about in which sites simply comply with these unreasonable demands instead of seeking limerick apologies as Malone had.
But if you thought I was going to leave you having read this post without a limerick to read, I can allay those concerns, as Malone himself decided to inform his readers of all of this in poetic form.
As of six thirty-five in the PMs
I've wrapped up my talks with the chieftains
They were misconstrued;
I'm not getting sued
And I needn't write out any ™sYes! An official who represents Darden
Has granted me a total pardon
We've reached resolution
I received absolution
For daring to print "olive garden"The source of the problem was sought
And the sender-offender was caught!
That e-mail was provided
(If you wonder [as I did])
by a prodigious, litigious spam-bot.My sole issue with Legal's retort
Was the prose of their written report
The demand was specific:
a reply via lim'rick
Well. At least I'm not going to court.
Bravo.
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: allofgarden, apologies, brand enforcement, olive garden, vincent malone
Companies: darden, mark monitor, olive garden
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
OK, I get it now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There seriously needs to be penalties for sending bogus IP things, its the only way these companies will get better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No. Unacceptable.
A company has no (legal) right to demand how anyone should address their "brand".
At least he's not going to court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think that's shorthand for "respect our brand rights," ie. not committing actual trademark infringement. Which is a lot more reasonable than the literal reading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Writing is about clarity; if they want the meaning of the phrase “respect our brand” to be construed as “respect our brand rights”, they can just say “respect our brand rights”. How much trouble would adding an extra six-letter word and clearing up any possible confusion really cause in this situation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
As if he is suddenly going to run out and open another restaurant chain called The Olive Garden.
If legal was in the huddle and made "them" add that phrase, then they certainly should have done a better job of phrasing it if they meant something other than what it sounds like.
Or maybe they simply wanted a stereotypical Italian mobster flavor added. You know, for authentic-ness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not over
In fact, I'd be willing to bet that an IP bot will send a notice to TechDirt for daring to mention Olive Garden (or olivegarden) in an article talking about Olive Garden.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not over
The first rule of Olive Garden is: You do not talk about Olive Garden.
The second rule of Olive Garden is: You do not talk about Olive Garden.
Third rule of Olive Garden: Someone yells "stop", goes limp, taps out, the Never Ending Pasta Bowl is over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bot
I mean, you can't prove someone read your email. Is email even considered "Good faith" as to a means of communication? Send me a registered letter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uhm...
What have you done with Branden, Darden?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uhm...
It's only after we've lost everything that we're free to do anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uhm...
Hmm.
From Wikipedia™, The Free Encyclopedia™:
From the email:
Oh boy. I suspect Mr. Branden is... sleeping with the fishes. Capisce?
:)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uhm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lame excuse
Same on the GrapeField for being so lazy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That'll make everything right... Kinda restores my faith in mankind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What I'm wondering about...
But a bot cannot do those things. A video is not court-admissible evidence because the rules of evidence predate the invention of video cameras -- a video is only admitted as evidence if a living human being watches it and then testifies about what the video shows, which can lead to absurd results if the person testilies instead.
So, how exactly can a bot make a legally admissible statement, as required by a DMCA takedown? I honestly don't see how it possibly could.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bot? Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whaaaattt??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It was a limerick?
Thank you for bringing this to our atten(tion)
And being such a passionate fan.
We all (huddled and) will take
No action relate(ed)
As long as you respect our bran(d)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
B-A-L-O-N-E-Y
It's Branden
My bot has a second name,
It's Forcements
I love to run it every day
And if you ask me wny
I'll say...
'Cause Brand Forcements has a way with B-A-L-O-N-E-Y
(sung to the tune of a certain 1973 TV commercial)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]