Aunt Joy's Cakes Is Being Sued By Sees Candy..
Business By Navyempress Updated 2 Oct 2010 , 3:26am by psambar
Funny that we both mentioned Cease and Desist letters! I'm glad to see someone actually went that route! And why not??? I mean, if Aunt Sue's is selling enough See's Cakes (or whatever) to make See's take notice, it means Aunt Sue's is BUYING See's candies, too! Why not say, "Dear Aunt Sue's, thank you SO much for supporting our business by using our candies in your cake. Please continue to do so!! But we have to ask that you not include "See's" in the name of your product." Now, wouldn't that make you want to keep supporting See's?
SOP is to send out C&D letters before suing...it's certainly possible that See's sent out a C&D letter and did not receive a response, which prompted them to file the suit.
That is funny! What I find amazing is that Morley is making an issue over "bumpy cake." I always thought Sanders held that name!!!
I think Sanders and Morley are the same company.
SOP is to send out C&D letters before suing...it's certainly possible that See's sent out a C&D letter and did not receive a response, which prompted them to file the suit.
I understand SOP in these matters. Really, I'm not a dummy. But I can't imagine Aunt Sue's would have received such a letter, with the threat of a lawsuit if they didn't comply, and simply ignored it...especially considering the verbiage on their website is different now. Typically, people who ignore C&D letters do so because they think they have a legal leg to stand on. Clearly that wouldn't be the case here, so if Aunt Sue's received C&D and ignored it, they deserve to be sued.
I just realized I've been saying "Aunt Sue's". I don't know where that came from....I don't even HAVE an Aunt Sue!
Cake for thought: cake is delivered, several people get sick at the event.
Who could they possibly sue?
The baker? Yes, certainly.
Sees? Yes. If one thinks about it, you could could get a lot more money from Sees than from a small baker.
Using the name puts them in a possible liability situation, especially if they know about the use and do nothing about it.
SOP is to send out C&D letters before suing...it's certainly possible that See's sent out a C&D letter and did not receive a response, which prompted them to file the suit.
I understand SOP in these matters. Really, I'm not a dummy. But I can't imagine Aunt Sue's would have received such a letter, with the threat of a lawsuit if they didn't comply, and simply ignored it...especially considering the verbiage on their website is different now. Typically, people who ignore C&D letters do so because they think they have a legal leg to stand on. Clearly that wouldn't be the case here, so if Aunt Sue's received C&D and ignored it, they deserve to be sued.
True...I've had webhosts take people's websites down when they plagiarized mine, but only after I sent the owner of the website a letter telling them to remove my copyrighted text or photos. If they did it, I don't bother contacting the host, but if they ignore me (or send a rude email back) I have the webhost deal with it.
Using the name See's Candy in their literature implies endorsement by See's Candy and that is why they were sued.
What's your source on that?
Just using the name "See's Candies" does not automatically mean that an endorsement is implied. For example, if your description states that the cake includes bits of See's Candies(R) Product X with appropriate trademark disclaimers, See's probably wouldn't have an issue, as no reasonable person would assume that See's specifically endorses your cake just because you use See's products as ingredients. Do you see how this is different from calling your product "See's Chocolate Cake"?
See's licenses their name, so using it without their consent is trademark infringement plain and simple. Secondly, this bakery, it will be argued, is in competition with See's as it sells it's chocolate products worldwide (via the Internet) thus the claim of unfair competition. It's very similar to using a Disney character on a cake. The infringing party is using someone else's brand to sell their product without licensing the rights to do so first. A big no no....
Quote by @%username% on %date%
%body%