Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

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.

You left out a pretty big part:

> ...That this Court declare that Impossible X’s trademark registrations in Registration Nos. 5376208, 5387588, and 5620625 be cancelled...

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.

When you look at the IMPOSSIBLE HQ logo next to MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE logo it is an obvious rip-off.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission:_Impossible#/media/Fil...

Any plans to accept donations?

You should spread this over more outlets, I think it's already being flagged here...

How do you think dealing with this will compare to running 100k in Antarctica?

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.

https://impossiblefoods.com/media/news-releases/2020-08/impo...

Here's a list of Impossible trademarks: https://impossiblex.com/trademarks/

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.

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...

Thanks for the support.

> Go back to other discussions about veganism here on HN and you will see the common anti-vegan memes.

You will also see a lot of outlandish claims about veganism, human diet and health and, food in general which is generally where the backlash starts.

I've seen claims like "humans have evolved to be vegan", "beef only has vitamin b12 because of b12 supplements", "if you eat properly, your body will generate it's own vitamin b12".

You'll also see dismissive, no true Scotsman, responses to issues with vegan diets like struggles to get enough b12, calcium and iodine.

I try to eat vegan, or at least vegetarian, a few days a week, mostly by eating traditionally vegetarian meals. Impossible meat is highly processed and is neither healthy nor a climate change solution.

As someone who eats a primarily vegan diet I find the vegan community to be insufferably toxic. I'm not talking about individuals but the community itself is just one big dick measuring contest about who is 'more vegan' and suffers more due to their devotion. I don't fault others for seeing how gross the community can be.

As another vegan, diet should have no bearing on this. It's a big company bullying a smaller one just because they can. The immorality of that doesn't depend on what you eat.

If it bothers you, let Impossible Meat know: https://faq.impossiblefoods.com/hc/en-us/requests/new

> But when you're one of the leading brands of a minority movement like veganism

Neither you nor impossible foods speak for the vegan movement. Most of my vegan friends do not eat this fake garbage nor would they ever make foolish claims like this.

First, lets separate 2 groups of people: 1. People that have a vegan diet. 2. People that actively defend veganism.

I have nothing against the group 1, but the prejudice you see, is because of group 2, I can say to you using rough napkin calculations that something like 95% of people I met in group two were total toxic assholes. Some examples of people I personally met:

1. Guy in school, kept telling me, CONSTANTLY, that I was eating corpses and whatnot, it was very annoying.

2. Another guy in school, told me I was evil because I ate meat, proceeded to rummage through my backpack and kick my belongings like if they were soccer balls (even screaming "goal" after he made my bible go between two chairs).

3. Chick I met in college, she asked me to become vegan, I told her I wouldn't and that I would keep eating bacon, her reaction was literally hit my head with her purse.

4. Various activist groups that did some insanely dumb shit where I live, one for example went to a research laboratory and freed all the animals, they took the cute animals (like beagles) home, and released the rest, without any notion if it was good idea or not to do so (several animals weren't native, and some were in the lab because they were being treated with experimental treatments for infectious diseases).

5. Random vegan I met online, dunno who that person is, I explained I have to eat meat due to a health condition, person then proceeded to tell me I should just die instead, that it was better for the planet for all people that need to eat meat to just die.

Why would a vegan ever eat impossible meat? They generally abstain from processed foods.

Black person here. I don't think (though I'm not going to say I'm 100% certain) that the word "prejudice" is best here?

You (very probably) made a choice to be a certain way, here. So, the "judice" part is correct, and people should perhaps be nicer, but this doesn't feel like the right word.

Remember that this is a countersuit to Impossible’s trademark suit against Impossible Foods. The company’s products were originally in separate product categories and should not have conflicted. Then Impossible brought out nutrition supplements which got closer to the food category. Yes, the logos probably look to much like each other though both are rather generic condensed bold sans-serif logotypes.

No, Impossible Food is suing to cancel Impossible HQ's trademark, and not their own. They want to be the only company allowed to use the "Impossible" branding, even though they weren't the first.

I'm sure their goal is to steal the trademark for their own exclusive use if they can swing that. Nullifying it so it is a generic term available to all would be worse for them than simply buying it from the rightful owners as they'd have to completely rebrand.

Not really that simple. Nissan Motors spent nearly a decade dragging a guy with the last name of "Nissan" through trademark court battles over his prior existing company "Nissan Computers" which did and still does own the domains Nissan.com and Nissan.net. Ultimately Nissan Computers won and got a small amount back for attorney fees but claims it was less than 2% they spent defending their brand and mark (IIRC he did not have a federally registered trademark but a service mark from a state of something like that).

No this is an ongoing attempt at theft. They don't want to be paid off they want his trademark even thought it's been granted for a decade and he is using it for an active business.

Just because a word is trademarked doesn't mean that someone else can't use, or even trademark, the same word in a different line of business. I can't call my new OS "Windows". I probably won't be able to start a line of computer monitors called "Windows" either. But if I wanted to open a line of restaurants under the "Windows" brand I'd probably be fine. Trademarks are only enforceable when there's a danger of consumer confusion.

That doesn't justify copying the logo. A million logos would work equally well for Impossible Foods without stomping on ImpossibleHQ.

Had a friend named Mike Rowe. We always thought he should start Mike Rowe Computers.

I just added it. Edit: also added the order to dismiss due to lack of personal jurisdiction and the trademark report document.

> This very much reinforces my skepticism and distrust towards this trend of branded so-called "meat-substitutes" and "plant-based cheeses" etc

And Microsoft suing MikeRoweSoft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._MikeRoweSoft) reinforced my skepticism in "operating systems" and "word processors".

The legal matters of a single company are largely unrelated to the industry it operates within, and I don't think this particular data-point should have any bearing on how you think of imitation meat.

The Microsoft lawsuit made me think "microsoft is dumb, I'm glad I use linux". This lawsuit, I think reasonably, makes me think "Impossible foods might be a dumb company, might have a bad legal team etc... I'm glad I eat boca burgers instead".

> People have eaten non-meat products since the dawn of history ... So, is there really that much value in these industrial "plant-based" meat/cheese substitutes? ... The greatest value of these companies is not in their technology to make "meat-substitutes". Rather, it is in getting customers to assume that they depend on their brand.

Sure, fine. You can also substitute all of that with "We didn't use to have McDonalds. McDonalds has value by raising brand recognition. We really don't need it though because people can just go home and bake their own bread"

I don't think you're making a point specific to the meat substitute industry here, nor is it really an actionable point. We do live in a society. Companies and brand names do exist. People do have different eating habits and expectations than we did 1000 years ago. What's the point?

> So, is there really that much value in these industrial "plant-based" meat/cheese substitutes?

Yes. There are many people who strongly believe "if there is no meat, it's not a meal". The only thing that is going to change their mind is something that looks and tastes like meat for a lower price.

Just ignore all their change-the-world marketing hogwash. The fake meats and cheeses are still occasionally useful, just because they're convenient and somewhat tasty, even if they don't taste like the real deal.

"Edible food-like substances" (to steal a term from Michael Pollan) have their place in a society all too obsessed with convenience and time efficiency. I don't think they should ever be a replacement for whole foods and basic staples, but they are a nice and easy way to add flavor to an otherwise bland vegan meal.

Yes, whole foods are healthier, and you can make a nutritionally balanced, delicious vegan meal out of basic grains and legumes and greens and whatnot... but it's a hell lot of work, especially because most of that stuff tastes like nothing.

For omnivores, adding meat to just about anything helps a lot with flavor, between the meat itself and the juices/fats flowing from it. But adding tofu or beans doesn't really add much flavor beyond a little bit of umami. You really have to season or sauce the hell out of every meal to make it taste good. And after a while, everything tastes kinda same-y... more nutritional yeast, more soy sauce, more curry, some generic beige protein, blah blah.

As someone who went vegan starting with whole foods yet never becoming a good enough cook, the fake stuff is in fact a really nice way to change up otherwise boring meals after a few years.

They're still made of grains and legumes and such, but the seasoning is done by Someone Else™ who's much better at it. Yeah, it's less healthy, but...

> meat was rare in the diets of the lower class of many societies

yeah, and the lower class was unhealthy and malnourished

>So, is there really that much value in these industrial "plant-based" meat/cheese substitutes? I don't think so, but they're being marketed as if they were a great step forward to "reduce our dependence on meat" — a dependence which does not actually exist.

you're vastly underestimating how much people like the taste of meat. there's a reason why countries up their meat consumption as they industrialize and get wealthier.

I agree with you to some degree, but I don't feel like you're winning anyone over with the "I'm not X but if I were, I would just..."

I've been vegan for 6 years now, and vegetarian many years before that, and sure, usually I just cook foods that pull from cuisines that aren't heavy on meat, eggs, and dairy. Lots of great curries and stir fries and so forth to choose from.

But sometimes you just need a stupid thing that looks vaguely burger-shaped because your family/friends/coworkers are having a BBQ event and you need to bring something they can throw on the grill because you know they're not going to think about it and you don't want to have everyone poking fun with their lame jokes when you ask them to put the stuffed pepper with rice and beans on the grill for a few minutes. Sometimes you just want to blend in because Todd from accounting is fucking annoying any time he sees you eating something in the break room that's not a ribeye steak or whatever the hell he thinks his cavemen ancestors ate. And sometimes you just want sloppy, greasy comfort food that is absolutely shitty in terms of health but tastes delicious. And sometimes you're just sick of cooking for yourself AGAIN because why the hell aren't there any vegan options at the restaurants near me and goddammit I'm just going to pull those burgers out of the freezer.

I don't think you'll find too many vegetarians and vegans for whom faux meat options are an everyday thing. It depends on what options are available around you, and maybe if you have kids who won't eat anything other than chicken nuggets and hot dogs. But for the most part...it's just nice to have them there when we want them. And to the extent we can also show people "hey, there are foods that look a lot like foods you're already used to, so Todd will also leave YOU alone!" that's great too. So there's value to these products. Sure, not as much as these "disruptive" businesses are trying to imply, but....there's still value.

Meh, let’s not conflate the plant based cheese side of things with the meat substitute market.

A decent quality plant based cheese is closer in texture to hummus and is literally, mostly, ground up nuts - you can make it at home in your blender if you want to.

If you’re talking processed American cheese style… that game is probably lost the minute you choose to eat processed American cheese.

>It's not so hard, it's just normal food that has always existed and has always been a part of my diet anyway.

It is quite hard for those of us who cut our teeth on processed food, where teams of food scientists have tweaked the formula to create the most crave able version of every food. That's why these meat substitutes are quite appealing.

Modern meat substitutes exist because texture is a huge part of eating and also people tend to go with the cuisine they're familiar with. Stocking a kitchen for the first time to cook Indian food is also a bit pricy. There are a lot of spices that you need to buy if you want to do it right, and they aren't cheap.

I see fake meat companies as filling a need among people trying a meatless fad diet. The primary market being young women who want to fit in with a group that has a number of obnoxiously vocal vegans.