Apparently Cosmic Fog is trying to bully VapeOholic

[stevegmu]

Wait until someone comes up with a a SuperBowl brew and gets the NFL all over their back...

 

[Steamix]

Nice goin...

BT and BP gonna luv it.

Divide and conquer.

As if vaping doesn't get enough flak from outside already...

 

[Krashman Von Stinkputin]

Along this line

In the case of Boba's Bounty
How was alien Vapor able to steal from alien Visions AND George Lucas at the same time ​(just look at that "trademarked" logo).

Messing with an upstart juice vendor is one thing but.....
The ONLY person that messes with "The LUCAS" is "The LUCAS"

Oh and...... Greedo did NOT shoot first,George.
Hold on their's someone at my door.
Gotta go the STAR WARS police are here.

 

[VaPreis]

Cosmic Fog should put their money where their mouth is. Or in other words, Vapeoholic should tell them to pound sand.

Hey Cosmic Fog, Lex Luthor wants the name of his rock back.

 

[Moonbogg]

I tried a Kryptonite juice and it tasted like soap. Disgusting. I don't remember where it was from and can't be bothered to check, but I will never vape any juice with that name again.

 

[rondasherrill]

I am more surprised that DC Comics doesn't have the name Kryptonite Trademarked.

Actually I can explain why that's not an issue! I've been active on the XBMC Media Center software, and because of trademark issues, they are changing the name. Obviously that caused issues with the community, so an explanation on the issue.(Just explaining how I know this)

Basically, a trademark becomes an issue if the potentially offending party is in the same market as the trademark holder. So a character on a comic/any form of media cannot be called the Green Lantern, but if someone created an e-liquid called green lantern, it's not an issue, because the e-liquid name can in no way create an issue with the original nameholder. That having been said, if the e-liquid had a picture of the comic's green lantern on it, that WOULD probably violate, because it would lead to the assumption that the e-liquid is somehow endorsed by the original nameholder.

 

[Midniteoyl]

Actually I can explain why that's not an issue! I've been active on the XBMC Media Center software, and because of trademark issues, they are changing the name. Obviously that caused issues with the community, so an explanation on the issue.(Just explaining how I know this)

Basically, a trademark becomes an issue if the potentially offending party is in the same market as the trademark holder. So a character on a comic/any form of media cannot be called the Green Lantern, but if someone created an e-liquid called green lantern, it's not an issue, because the e-liquid name can in no way create an issue with the original nameholder. That having been said, if the e-liquid had a picture of the comic's green lantern on it, that WOULD probably violate, because it would lead to the assumption that the e-liquid is somehow endorsed by the original nameholder.

Correct!

....

 

[Despraci]

Actually that's not correct, a trademark is protected at all times in accordance to the Federal ruling of DC Comics vs Kryptonite Corp. The two hand a deal where Kryptonite corp was allowed to use the name on their existing products put permission did not extend to any new future products. DC sued and won the rights to protect their trademark even though the two companies were not direct competitors and in different markets.

So the answer would be yes, DC should be able protect their trademark rights against any company utilizing them without permission.

Here's a link to the ruling Superman published triumphs over Kryptonite - in court - Sep. 23, 2004

 

[rondasherrill]

Actually that's not correct, a trademark is protected at all times in accordance to the Federal ruling of DC Comics vs Kryptonite Corp. The two hand a deal where Kryptonite corp was allowed to use the name on their existing products put permission did not extend to any new future products. DC sued and won the rights to protect their trademark even though the two companies were not direct competitors and in different markets.

So the answer would be yes, DC should be able protect their trademark rights against any company utilizing them without permission.

Here's a link to the ruling Superman published triumphs over Kryptonite - in court - Sep. 23, 2004

They chose the name Kryptonite as a direct reference to Superman and the comics, and they violated a previous contract they had with DC, allowing them to use Kryptonite name and imagery on various items. That is what makes that scenario a violation.

 

[Despraci]

So glad I am not a patent attorney or any attorney. I know there was a contract violation, but wasn't sure if the suit was based on the violation or DC trademarks rights. Personally if somebody made a green e-juice and called it Kryptonite, I would associate that as a direct reference. Not really enough for me to lose sleep over either. I figure some day we'll see some company try to enforce their trademark rights as this industry grows (if regulations don't kill it before then).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[zoiDman]

Leo Lee linked a FB post from Abigail Castillo-Roxas, where she says that Cosmic Fog's VP called her store and told her that CF had trademarked the name Kryptonite, which is the name of one of her juices. Apparently, VapeOholic has been in business longer, and had their Kryptonite juice longer, and now he is implying they have got to change the name of their juice.

...

All this kind of stuff makes me Coo Coo for Coco Puffs. I say Show me your Trademark Registration Application or get off of my Cloud.

BTW - I have Recently been Served a Cease and Diesis Notice from General Mills for my persistent Public Use of the Phrase "Coo Coo for Coco Puffs". But Screw Them! Fight the Power.

 

[rondasherrill]

So glad I am not a patent attorney or any attorney. I know there was a contract violation, but wasn't sure if the suit was based on the violation or DC trademarks rights. Personally if somebody made a green e-juice and called it Kryptonite, I would associate that as a direct reference. Not really enough for me to lose sleep over either. I figure some day we'll see some company try to enforce their trademark rights as this industry grows (if regulations don't kill it before then).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

If they made it all glowy green I could definitely see them at least trying a suit. Trademark law is such a huge cluster........ From what I've seen/read, it seems like most trademark attorneys tend to go for the "try it and see what the judge says" method. Considering the overwhelming majority of trademark suits settle out of court, it's worth it to them to go ahead and give it a shot.

 

[zoiDman]

BTW - For those who Like to do Searches.

Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS)

 

[wheelie]

I got a cease and desist order from head office of Harley Davidson because they said they own the word "Hog" when related to motorcycles. After all said and done I still own independenthog.com LOL

 

[Morrolon]

I just heard about this today in VapeOholic. They seem a little annoyed, but already have another name picked out.

Unfortunately, these kind of shenanigans have been going on in the craft beer community for at least 5 years now. It's definitely frowned upon by the consumers, but luckily hasn't really affected much. Sometimes, breweries will at least call each other and try to hash things out without lawyers.

 

[Despraci]

If they made it all glowy green I could definitely see them at least trying a suit. Trademark law is such a huge cluster........ From what I've seen/read, it seems like most trademark attorneys tend to go for the "try it and see what the judge says" method. Considering the overwhelming majority of trademark suits settle out of court, it's worth it to them to go ahead and give it a shot.

I agree with that. It will be "throw it against the wall and see if it sticks" type case. More then likely a small e-liquid would comply with a cease and desist order then go against a large company.

 

[AzPlumber]

I believe when you file for a Trademark the burden is on you to insure that what ever your using is not already in use.

 

[JulesXsmokr]

Well - when you reference kryptonite - it is a "made up" name of a fictional atomic element. It was created by the superman comics. So I can see why using that name in any form could be a direct reference to superman trademarks.
On the other hand plain separate English words can't be trademarked 'cause they are in the dictionary (not talking about the encyclopedia here).
But lumping them into a "made up" phrase or attaching an icon to them would make them suspectable to a legal challenge of use.
Excuse me if I am all completely wrong here.. This is how I see it ..

Remember "Monster Cable" company - they tried to sue everyone who used the word monster.
b-t-w their products are totally Monster Garbage, not worth 1/3 of their value..

 

[Despraci]

Well - when you reference kryptonite - it is a "made up" name of a fictional atomic element. It was created by the superman comics. So I can see why using that name in any form could be a direct reference to superman trademarks.
On the other hand plain separate English words can't be trademarked 'cause they are in the dictionary (not talking about the encyclopedia here).
But lumping them into a "made up" phrase or attaching an icon to them would make them suspectable to a legal challenge of use.
Excuse me if I am all completely wrong here.. This is how I see it ..

Remember "Monster Cable" company - they tried to sue everyone who used the word monster.
b-t-w their products are totally Monster Garbage, not worth 1/3 of their value..

It's really hard to say. I think it's one big grey area. I agree with your interpretation that it was a made up word first used in a comic. But I also agree that the two are different markets and the are not directly referencing Superman. I think DC could throw something against the wall and see if a judge see's it their way, but another lawyer could argue there is no direct reference and other companies have been able to trademark variations of the use of Kryptonite. Bottle filled with green liquid called Kyrptonite, well I am sure Lex did that once or twice in the comics. I wouldn't want to be the judge that had to decide if it came down to that.

 

[rondasherrill]

It's really hard to say. I think it's one big grey area. I agree with your interpretation that it was a made up word first used in a comic. But I also agree that the two are different markets and the are not directly referencing Superman. I think DC could throw something against the wall and see if a judge see's it their way, but another lawyer could argue there is no direct reference and other companies have been able to trademark variations of the use of Kryptonite. Bottle filled with green liquid called Kyrptonite, well I am sure Lex did that once or twice in the comics. I wouldn't want to be the judge that had to decide if it came down to that.

Just hope nobody gets the idea to try this...