it seems like Impossible X complained first and Impossible food is saying that they want it declared that they are not infringing on Impossible X's trademarks.
IOW: little guy complained first and big guy is asking for relief that they are not doing anything wrong.
Thanks for sharing this. It looks like Impossible X (the defendant) was the first to sue to have Impossible Foods cease using their logo and trademark. And now Impossible Foods isn't budging and asserting their weight through counter-suit. It still feels very unfair even though the small guy started it; he's trying to protect his brand. He has supplied actual cases of confusion between the two companies according to this filing.
He should have definitely included that information in this blog post though. It's more than a little misleading.
And isn't the company that holds the trademark legally obligated to defend it? My understanding is that if you aren't actively making sure that your trademark is not infringed upon, it bolsters the case that the trademark has been abandoned.
So it's not like the trademark holder is looking for a fight. The law essentially forces their hand.
Were there actually any cases of confusion? Impossible Food's filing states: Impossible X also referenced, without providing details, “several apparent instances of actual confusion.”
Unless there are more I'm missed, Impossible X's closest trademark covers nutritional supplements. They are arguing that allowing Impossible Foods to have a trademark on the following would cause confusion: "Providing information about recipes, ingredients and cooking information; providing an online computer database to consumers eaturing information about recipes, ingredients and cooking information". I don't really see any overlap.
I'm going to chime in as yet another voice saying it feels somewhat cheap for you to have left out the part where Impossible X sued Impossible Foods first. Given the similarity between the logos and the fact you have to police a trademark to protect it, Impossible X's suit appears completely justified. But as it stands your current story comes across a bit dishonest, as if you're trying to claim this attempt to cancel your trademark just came out of nowhere. There is a larger situation here, and you do a disservice to both your audience and yourself by brushing past it.
When you look at the ImpossibleHQ vs Impossible Foods logo, it's obviously, without a doubt, a complete rip off.
It's the sort of lawsuit that I would expect ImpossibleHQ to put against Impossible Foods, obviously not vice versa.
It seems so clearly a rip off of the logo, that it's the kind of lawsuit that I want to invest in. Like -- I want to help fund a lawsuit against Impossible foods for millions that they ripped off the logo/trademark illegally.
Is there any past examples of investment/crowdfunding for a lawsuit, where the investors earn returns if a lawsuit succeeds?
This feels like an interesting opportunity for grassroots crowdfunding/investment for a David vs Goliath situation.
I disagree. It looks like both companies went to https://en.bestfonts.pro/font/tungsten and just wrote IMPOSSIBLE and chose semi bold. Anyway, the fonts are clearly different, the M being the giveaway and HQ has (for probably trademark reasons) whiteout the middle which synergizes with their product of crossing out the impossible which Foods has not done because they want to emphasize their food is impossible.
Not sure if I am seeing the same logos, but is the ripoff just that they are both the word "impossible" using a bold, non-serif font?
While I agree it is far too similar, it is also not at all unlikely that Impossible Foods designed their logo in a vacuum. Bold, non-serif logo fonts are certainly extremely popular as of the last 10+ years.
> When you look at the ImpossibleHQ vs Impossible Foods logo, it's obviously, without a doubt, a complete rip off.
I have doubts.
Their logos aren't very similar, given the design space of today's black on white/white on black uppercase sans-serif[1] logos.
In fact only the strike through IMPOSSIBLE logo (https://trademarks.justia.com/871/16/impossible-87116503.htm...) appears to have any features that could be called creative or distinctive. That is owned by Impossible LLC, as opposed to Impossible Foods Inc.
If Impossible Foods used such a logo anywhere, I couldn't find it.
[1]: The Impossible Foods' logos in question actually have some subtle serifs, while Impossible's font is sans-serif.
> Is there any past examples of investment/crowdfunding for a lawsuit, where the investors earn returns if a lawsuit succeeds?
Sounds like you're describing litigation funding (a fairly established market). You'd probably want to back it by insurance to cover the investors and party bringing the action against adverse costs exposure.
Litigation funding is often provided by insurers anyway as a result, as they can put up the cash, and cover the risk of costs via their insurance.
I wonder if there's a litigation betting market. I know there's prediction markets, but I'm wondering about a community dedicated to market making on any/all lawsuits.
- They use the mark IMPOSSIBLE with services relating to recipes, food ingredients, and cooking information, and Impossible X does not.
- Impossible X has challenged their right to use the trademark in that manner, and so they want the courts to decide with finality who has what rights.
- Since Impossible X has not asserted their rights to the mark in this manner in many years, and have not pursued any business in that area, Impossible Foods wants any trade marks in relation to food to be considered abandoned (incidentally, this is why big companies pursue trademark claims so aggressively).
- They also want to be awarded costs (not a likely outcome, but always good to throw in).
My dry reading of this gives the impression that they're likely to prevail. If you don't protect your trademark, especially against such a high profile company and let it run for years unchallenged, you risk losing it. This is to prevent people from submarining a lawsuit by allowing a company to build massive value in a mark you own rights to, only to snatch it away from them and hold it for ransom.
In your opinion, is this coming from an overly aggressive IP-focused legal team more used to the way biotechs operate? Do you think the board is aware?
Speaking of investors: Have you thought about making some of the celebrity voices who own a piece of the pie aware of what Impossible Foods is doing?
In addition to blue-chip institutional investors, Impossible Foods’ existing individual investors include Jay Brown, Common, Kirk Cousins, Paul George, Peter Jackson, Jay-Z, Mindy Kaling, Trevor Noah, Alexis Ohanian, Kal Penn, Katy Perry, Questlove, Ruby Rose, Phil Rosenthal, Jaden Smith, Serena Williams, will.i.am and Zedd.
Case number for locating it in PACER: 5:2021cv02419
At a glance of the complaint it seems that Impossible X started this with complaints and legal action against mpossible Foods for infringing on their trademarks. The complaint additionally shows that Impossible X was granted their registration of IMPOSSIBLE on Jan 9th, 2018.
That's for a trademark in the context of "exercise and fitness" though. You can have one Impossible doing that and another Impossible selling food and there's no consumer confusion so they're both fine. It's just when the fitness company started applying their existing branding to nutrition products in apparently 2018 that suddenly there was a conflict.
Good info thanks. My comment wasn't intended to be a statement of fact by me, but rather what Impossible Foods claims. The complaint is now available on courtlistener.
Am I reading this wrong or do they just think they can steal the trademark because they're bigger? Now that I think about it, looks like they ripped off his logo too...
I don't think that's what's happening at all. Seems like Impossible existed prior, and had trademarks. Impossible Foods started later, and used the name (and logo for that matter) for years without being questioned.
Now recently, Impossible brought trademark threats against Impossible Foods. What is being referenced here is like a countersuit from Impossible Foods, and their demand is specifically that they be granted the Impossible trademark in the context of "recipes, food ingredients, and cooking
information."
The main source of conflict would be around Impossible's "Impossible Nutrition," which is trademarked. However, Impossible Foods predates that product and trademark.
So it seems like originally there was no conflict as they were in different areas- that's totally normal. However after Impossible Foods had been created, Impossible launched a line of nutrition products that create a possible conflict. Impossible then made some trademark threats against Impossible Foods, and Impossible Foods has responded with a suit asking for relief and that they be granted the Trademark in the context of food.
I'm open to the possibility that I'm reading this wrong, but I think Impossible Foods is 100% in the right here.
The logo thing is definitely dicier, but they do seem different enough that you probably wouldn't get in trouble for that.
Yeah the Impossible Foods logo looks like the same font without the strike out in the middle. And according to the filings the logo been registered to ImpossibleHQ since 2012 and that's also documented on the web archive with that same logo being used in 2011 https://web.archive.org/web/20111031071828/http://impossible...
Readit News
it seems like Impossible X complained first and Impossible food is saying that they want it declared that they are not infringing on Impossible X's trademarks.
IOW: little guy complained first and big guy is asking for relief that they are not doing anything wrong.
Is there more to the story?
He should have definitely included that information in this blog post though. It's more than a little misleading.
So it's not like the trademark holder is looking for a fight. The law essentially forces their hand.
Unless there are more I'm missed, Impossible X's closest trademark covers nutritional supplements. They are arguing that allowing Impossible Foods to have a trademark on the following would cause confusion: "Providing information about recipes, ingredients and cooking information; providing an online computer database to consumers eaturing information about recipes, ingredients and cooking information". I don't really see any overlap.
isn't the public interest primarily in having a consistent definition of "impossible?" One which has been clearly meme'd into our culture already?
> ...That this Court declare that Impossible X’s trademark registrations in Registration Nos. 5376208, 5387588, and 5620625 be cancelled...
Deleted Comment
It's the sort of lawsuit that I would expect ImpossibleHQ to put against Impossible Foods, obviously not vice versa.
It seems so clearly a rip off of the logo, that it's the kind of lawsuit that I want to invest in. Like -- I want to help fund a lawsuit against Impossible foods for millions that they ripped off the logo/trademark illegally.
Is there any past examples of investment/crowdfunding for a lawsuit, where the investors earn returns if a lawsuit succeeds?
This feels like an interesting opportunity for grassroots crowdfunding/investment for a David vs Goliath situation.
Dead Comment
While I agree it is far too similar, it is also not at all unlikely that Impossible Foods designed their logo in a vacuum. Bold, non-serif logo fonts are certainly extremely popular as of the last 10+ years.
I have doubts.
Their logos aren't very similar, given the design space of today's black on white/white on black uppercase sans-serif[1] logos.
In fact only the strike through IMPOSSIBLE logo (https://trademarks.justia.com/871/16/impossible-87116503.htm...) appears to have any features that could be called creative or distinctive. That is owned by Impossible LLC, as opposed to Impossible Foods Inc.
If Impossible Foods used such a logo anywhere, I couldn't find it.
[1]: The Impossible Foods' logos in question actually have some subtle serifs, while Impossible's font is sans-serif.
Sounds like you're describing litigation funding (a fairly established market). You'd probably want to back it by insurance to cover the investors and party bringing the action against adverse costs exposure.
Litigation funding is often provided by insurers anyway as a result, as they can put up the cash, and cover the risk of costs via their insurance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission:_Impossible#/media/Fil...
Impossible Foods primary arguments are:
- They use the mark IMPOSSIBLE with services relating to recipes, food ingredients, and cooking information, and Impossible X does not.
- Impossible X has challenged their right to use the trademark in that manner, and so they want the courts to decide with finality who has what rights.
- Since Impossible X has not asserted their rights to the mark in this manner in many years, and have not pursued any business in that area, Impossible Foods wants any trade marks in relation to food to be considered abandoned (incidentally, this is why big companies pursue trademark claims so aggressively).
- They also want to be awarded costs (not a likely outcome, but always good to throw in).
My dry reading of this gives the impression that they're likely to prevail. If you don't protect your trademark, especially against such a high profile company and let it run for years unchallenged, you risk losing it. This is to prevent people from submarining a lawsuit by allowing a company to build massive value in a mark you own rights to, only to snatch it away from them and hold it for ransom.
You should spread this over more outlets, I think it's already being flagged here...
Speaking of investors: Have you thought about making some of the celebrity voices who own a piece of the pie aware of what Impossible Foods is doing?
In addition to blue-chip institutional investors, Impossible Foods’ existing individual investors include Jay Brown, Common, Kirk Cousins, Paul George, Peter Jackson, Jay-Z, Mindy Kaling, Trevor Noah, Alexis Ohanian, Kal Penn, Katy Perry, Questlove, Ruby Rose, Phil Rosenthal, Jaden Smith, Serena Williams, will.i.am and Zedd.
https://impossiblefoods.com/media/news-releases/2020-08/impo...
At a glance of the complaint it seems that Impossible X started this with complaints and legal action against mpossible Foods for infringing on their trademarks. The complaint additionally shows that Impossible X was granted their registration of IMPOSSIBLE on Jan 9th, 2018.
Note the logo: Class 041 | 025 | 12/18/2012 https://trademark.trademarkia.com/impossible-85578345.html
The registration date was in 2012, and, apart from the blank line in the middle, is identical to impossible food's logo. Both use League Gothic Font.
Now recently, Impossible brought trademark threats against Impossible Foods. What is being referenced here is like a countersuit from Impossible Foods, and their demand is specifically that they be granted the Impossible trademark in the context of "recipes, food ingredients, and cooking information."
The main source of conflict would be around Impossible's "Impossible Nutrition," which is trademarked. However, Impossible Foods predates that product and trademark.
So it seems like originally there was no conflict as they were in different areas- that's totally normal. However after Impossible Foods had been created, Impossible launched a line of nutrition products that create a possible conflict. Impossible then made some trademark threats against Impossible Foods, and Impossible Foods has responded with a suit asking for relief and that they be granted the Trademark in the context of food.
I'm open to the possibility that I'm reading this wrong, but I think Impossible Foods is 100% in the right here.
The logo thing is definitely dicier, but they do seem different enough that you probably wouldn't get in trouble for that.
https://trademark.trademarkia.com/impossible-nutrition-87116...
This was from 2018 (important I think).
Another was this: https://trademark.trademarkia.com/impossible-85578345.html
But the class is not a super overlap with impossible foods.
Here is impossible foods mark.
https://trademarks.justia.com/861/02/impossible-86102158.htm...
2013 was the filing date here.
With an english language word, the trademark protection is (generally) going to be a bit narrower (ie, specific class etc).
For what it is worth, at a 10 second glance this is not the slam dunk little vs big player thing.