Comment by wilg
3 days ago
Arguing the "E" in the "Eggo" trademark and the "E" on the egg roll truck are so distinct that anyone arguing it must be lying is not a reasonable position.
3 days ago
Arguing the "E" in the "Eggo" trademark and the "E" on the egg roll truck are so distinct that anyone arguing it must be lying is not a reasonable position.
My commentary on the 'E' is a response to that being specifically called out as the same in an earlier comment when it's specifically not the same if you actually look at it. The bit about the lawyer lying is what I quoted from the court document: that it's "likely to deceive and cause confusion, mistake, or deception among consumers or potential consumers" about whether this is endorsed or associated with Kellogg. And yes let's not kid ourselves, that is a lie. No one including the lawyer thinks that's true. Saying things that you obviously think are untrue is lying, even if you do it professionally.
I called out the E as one of numerous obvious similarities in the styling of the motto, not specifically. You are choosing to focus on just the E instead of the other similar elements taken as a whole. We can drop the disagreement over that specific letter and my argument as a whole still stands.
Here’s the only context I Mentioned the E:
“The entire business is branded like Eggo waffles. The colors used, the font and stylistic “E” are the same, the white outlining of red letters on a yellow field is copied. It isn’t just the name and phrase, the entire brand is copied over.”
If it were just the E it wouldn’t be much of a claim. But it is clear to even a casual observer that the food truck business’ entire brand is based exclusively on recognizable elements of the Eggo brand.
You keep acting like Kellog’s is a villain here, but according to both parties Kellog’s attempted to resolve this amicably out of court. They went so far as to offer to pay for the cost of rebranding the truck as a goodwill effort and contacted the lawyer representing the food truck’s corporation over the course of months in attempts to solve it out of court.
It's based on recognizable elements because it's clearly parodying them; they are not copying the brand. They are not relying on people thinking there's an endorsement or association with Kellogg. They're relying on a chuckle. This stuff is all obvious to anyone with enough reasoning ability to pass the LSAT (or anyone who can pass middle school), so obviously any lawyer who claims otherwise is a disingenuous liar.
Lying like that might be par for the course, but that's why lawyers have a bit of a poor reputation when it comes to ethics.
I only mentioned the E because you did, and it's the most obvious element to display that in fact the font is completely different; the only similarity is "vaguely cursive". It's that sort of "clearly referencing X but obviously 'off'" look that parodies shoot for.
4 replies →
I agree you had a reason for what you said about the "E", I'm taking issue with what you said.
No, speaking on someone else's behalf, as lawyers are obligate to do is not lying. They are representing their client's position.
You also cannot "lie" about an opinion about what might confuse other people.
> They are representing their client's position.
I guess, but it's still distasteful, especially when it's a corporation saying it and the corporation is incentivized to exaggerate/mislead to an extreme.
> You also cannot "lie" about an opinion about what might confuse other people.
What are you talking about? Of course you can lie about your opinion. And the opinion involving other people doesn't change that.
I'll do it right now: I think basically nobody likes ice cream, they're all faking it to fit in.