h a l f b a k e r yThis product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Now that Ben & Jerry's are no longer a small community-run business, but are instead owned by a huge faceless conglomerate, Jutta should feel no guilt at all when sueing them for a cut of their profits for selling "Halfbaked icecream". See link.
(?) Ben & Jerry's press release
http://www.benjerry.../pressrel/mar01.htm
[hippo, Aug 28 2001, last modified Oct 21 2004]
Ben & Jerry's current problem
http://www.chunkymonkeyfilm.com/
A British film producer made a film called "Chunky Monkey" that features perversions involving the use of the B&J product. The film is already made but no-one dares to distribute it. [Aristotle, Aug 28 2001, last modified Oct 21 2004]
Commercial I just saw
http://www.grouper....aspx?id=1595561&ml=
I only get Cherry Garcia & ignore the rest of their flavors. I didn't know that "half-baked" had been around that long. [Zimmy, Nov 02 2006]
[link]
|
| |
I think it the www.halfbaked.com web site that should sue rather than Jutta ... and only if they have trademarked actually half baked previously. |
|
| |
Sue the flabby weasels - my exwife did after she bit into a cone only to find there was a small cleaning implement which had fallen into cone... cracked teeth and did damage to her jaw - she and her husband took item to counter of Ben and Jerrys where this happened - person behind the counter said "Ooooh, that's where it went."
Needless to say, it went into the hands of their attorney instead. |
|
| |
<pedant>That would have been "Sue, Ben and Jerry's", not "Sue Ben & Jerry's"</pedant> |
|
| |
Even if someone had registered the term "half-baked" for a web site, I believe U.S. law would still permit Ben & Jerry's to trademark the same term for ice cream. I think the problem only exists when the trademarks are for products that actually compete, or when the image of a subsequent, non-competing trademark may somehow damage the value of the prior trademark. That's part of the reason a trademark must be an adjective that modifies a generic noun. |
|
| |
I could be a bit off base, though. I'm not as sure about trademarks as I am about patents. |
|
| |
<smug> I'd just like to say that I didn't fall into the same trap as UnaBubba because I did pay attention to who posted the idea. |
|
| |
beax: I believe you are correct. Its the reason Apple computers were left alone by Apple records, until they started getting involved with multimedia, and therefore music. A court case ensued, which was settled out of court. |
|
| |
Let me just close that tag for DrBob - </smug> - there we
go. |
|
| |
In the messed-up world of trademarks and domain names it would sadly be far more likely that the Ben And Jerry corpration would sue Jutta for causing "consumer confusion and dilution of the valuable Ben And Jerry brand" by having a website that mentioned the word "halfbaked" in an ice-cream related context. Faced with a potentially ruinous legal battle to retain halfbakery.com, our beloved bakesperson would have little choice but to hand it over. Unless an intrepid band of halfbakers, angered and united against a common enemy, could ingeneously outmaneuver the faceless corporation in a plan involving some wireless pigeon-mounted cameras and a whole load of exploding robot chickens. |
|
| |
[absterge] see UnaBubba's first annotation. |
|
| |
Has anyone else seen the commercial in the link? I don't know how long it's been running, but I saw it for the first time yesterday. |
|
| |