Grumpy Cat Wins $710k From Copyright Infringing Coffee

R

rgMekanic

[H]ard|News
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
6,942
After 2 years since the case was filed, TorrentFreak is reporting that a jury in California has awarded Grumpy Cat $710,001 for copyright and trademark infringement, with a symbolic $1 in nominal damages for contract breach. The Grenade Beverage had licensed the copyright and trademarks to produce the Grumpy Cat “Grumppuccino” iced coffee beverage, but went further trying to sell other "Grumpy Cat" Products.

One has to wonder how much this cats owners have made from their little furry meme. We originally reported on this in 2016, when no one believed they would get anything. Thanks to cageymaru for the story.

The eight-person jury in Santa Ana, California sided with the cat’s owner and awarded the company $710,000 in copyright and trademark infringement damages, as well as a symbolic $1 for contract breach. According to court documents, the majority of the damages have to be paid by Grumpy Beverage, but the company’s owner Paul Sandford is also held personally liable for $60,000.
 
As silly as this sounds, it's absolutely batshit stupid of the company to go to the point of licensing the likeness for one product ... because well you figured you had to ... and then basically say "well fuck it we don't need to pay for a license for anything else because I already licensed it for one product"... I'm guessing that company does not have a legal department that they asked? Or they need to fire their legal and get a new one...
 
No doubt many here will blame California, but personally I think the problem is in our FUBAR intellectual property laws. Then again, IANAL.
 
bugleyman said:
No doubt many here will blame California, but personally I think the problem is in our FUBAR intellectual property laws. Then again, IANAL.
Click to expand...
Yeah just a thought... Harley Davidson got a trademark on the SOUND their bikes make, they are not a California company. But hey the California hate in this message board is strong, so fuck it go with it.
 
sfsuphysics said:
As silly as this sounds, it's absolutely batshit stupid of the company to go to the point of licensing the likeness for one product ... because well you figured you had to ... and then basically say "well fuck it we don't need to pay for a license for anything else because I already licensed it for one product"... I'm guessing that company does not have a legal department that they asked? Or they need to fire their legal and get a new one...
Click to expand...

That actually makes perfect sense. Irrespective of one's feelings about IP law, that licensing strategy is...um...inconsistent at best.
 
image.png
 
sfsuphysics said:
Yeah just a thought... Harley Davidson got a trademark on the SOUND their bikes make, they are not a California company. But hey the California hate in this message board is strong, so fuck it go with it.
Click to expand...

What they couldn't get it on the vtwin so they decided to trademark the noise? /facepalm
 
They probably could have bought a license for fairly cheap. Hopefully their coffee company burns to the ground.
 
The company that pulled that is either incredibly cocky or stupid. Probably a little of both.
 
Kwaz said:
What they couldn't get it on the vtwin so they decided to trademark the noise? /facepalm
Click to expand...

I think they lost that claim, so, no Potato for Harley. (the sound a HD makes is supposed to sound like "Potato potato potato"
 
Hasnt that sucker made like $600 mill at this point? I think last count a few years ago it was $300 mill in merchandising.
 
Gigus Fire said:
They probably could have bought a license for fairly cheap. Hopefully their coffee company burns to the ground.
Click to expand...

They did. They had the cat smeared on a few of there cans. The lawsuite was because they used it beyond the few cans.
 
I saw this report in my local news this morning. They said the owner has made over $10M with grumpy cat. Not sure how accurate it is, but probably true.
 
Considering it's believed this cat is worth millions...it seems to be doing a bit better than cat themed crypto "currencies." And yeah I'm jealous I just don't have the kind of mind that thinks: Grumpy Cat=$$$
 
Why not just take a picture of a different cat that is grumpy. There are a ton of cats that look just like that one. It's not that big of a deal.
 
I wonder if Grumpy Cat LLC will even see a penny of the award. With the sizable award amount and lawyers being lawyers they could tie it up forever.
 
Ur_Mom said:
Why not just take a picture of a different cat that is grumpy. There are a ton of cats that look just like that one. It's not that big of a deal.
Click to expand...
Well it worked for Morris: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_the_Cat
Of course they kept 'em in the same family. I wonder if they thought of Trademarking Grumpy Cat? (If they were Apple they'd probably have a patent by now.)
 
WhoMe said:
Well it worked for Morris: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_the_Cat
Of course they kept 'em in the same family. I wonder if they thought of Trademarking Grumpy Cat? (If they were Apple they'd probably have a patent by now.)
Click to expand...

That's like patenting "Good Dog". It's just too vague. Gumpy Cat. See a cat that looks pissed (most Persian cats), and it's a grumpy cat.

I just don't get how that works. Just very common things, yet they are protected...
 
Ur_Mom said:
That's like patenting "Good Dog". It's just too vague. Gumpy Cat. See a cat that looks pissed (most Persian cats), and it's a grumpy cat.

I just don't get how that works. Just very common things, yet they are protected...
Click to expand...
Yeah I was being facetious (for the most part, these days who knows, you may well be able to patent blue).
 
Ur_Mom said:
That's like patenting "Good Dog". It's just too vague. Gumpy Cat. See a cat that looks pissed (most Persian cats), and it's a grumpy cat.

I just don't get how that works. Just very common things, yet they are protected...
Click to expand...
This is more specific than that. Not simply a grumpy looking cat. Notice the two blue "TM" on image below.

The company licensed the trademarked Grumpy Cat name and image from Grumpy Cat LLC to sell one product - Grumppuccino. They expanded it to many others things such as t-shirts, ground coffee, etc ... which clearly violated the original contract.

grumpy-cat-coffee-ep.jpg
 
Last edited:
Susquehannock said:
This is more specific than that. Not simply a grumpy looking cat. Notice the two blue "TM" on image below.

The company licensed the trademarked Grumpy Cat name and image from Grumpy Cat LLC to sell one product - Grumppuccino. They expanded it to many others things such as t-shirts, ground coffee, etc ... which clearly violated the original contract.

grumpy-cat-coffee-ep.jpg
Click to expand...
The logo and name are TMed but the actual cat? I think someone could come up with say "Angry Cat" and use some angry cat to promote it. I'm not up on TM law but I believe if you are not too close you can get away with it... Trader Joe's sued Pirate Joe's for TM infringement and lost because they couldn't prove "harm."
 
WhoMe said:
The logo and name are TMed but the actual cat? I think someone could come up with say "Angry Cat" and use some angry cat to promote it. I'm not up on TM law but I believe if you are not too close you can get away with it... Trader Joe's sued Pirate Joe's for TM infringement and lost because they couldn't prove "harm."
Click to expand...
No, silly. :p The cat's owners set up an LLC, coffee company established a contract with it, and broke terms. Simple as that.
 
bugleyman said:
No doubt many here will blame California, but personally I think the problem is in our FUBAR intellectual property laws. Then again, IANAL.
Click to expand...
Nope -- trademark, copyright and patent law are fairly well defined and rational. But when left to some dumb ass people in California nothing is outside of the realm of possibility. I suspect that you never practiced IP law in California as YANAL and have no real understanding of the bullshit that juries can be convinced to do, not to mention backwater judges. Speaking of juries, ever hear of OJ?
 
RealBeast said:
Nope -- trademark, copyright and patent law are fairly well defined and rational. But when left to some dumb ass people in California nothing is outside of the realm of possibility. I suspect that you never practiced IP law in California as YANAL and have no real understanding of the bullshit that juries can be convinced to do, not to mention backwater judges. Speaking of juries, ever hear of OJ?
Click to expand...

I have heard of OJ. I've also heard of Disney using Mickey Mouse to get copyright extended. And then extended again. It seems to me that deadlines that keep getting pushed out aren't deadlines at all, which doesn't seem rational.

But your'e absolutely right...I have no real understanding of what juries can be convinced to do. I've never served on a jury; I'm always sent packing. In fact, the only two times I've ever been in a court room were for a parking ticket and a child support hearing, neither of which involved a jury. Nor do I understand why juries should be involved in most matters of civil law, but that's beside the point.
 
Last edited:
Susquehannock said:
This is more specific than that. Not simply a grumpy looking cat. Notice the two blue "TM" on image below.

The company licensed the trademarked Grumpy Cat name and image from Grumpy Cat LLC to sell one product - Grumppuccino. They expanded it to many others things such as t-shirts, ground coffee, etc ... which clearly violated the original contract.

grumpy-cat-coffee-ep.jpg
Click to expand...


Right. That works in this case because they had a contract, etc.. But, why can "Gumpy Cat" be trademarked. It's describing a cat. Can I take a picture of a different cat and call it "Pissed Cat"?

Just seems too trivial to be able to be trademarked. It's a picture of their pet.

I understand this case and why they'd lose. Just not the rest of how simple the TM is and how common it could be. Like trademarking "Gravel" with a picture of.... gravel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WhoMe
like this
Ur_Mom said:
Right. That works in this case because they had a contract, etc.. But, why can "Gumpy Cat" be trademarked. It's describing a cat. Can I take a picture of a different cat and call it "Pissed Cat"?

Just seems too trivial to be able to be trademarked. It's a picture of their pet.

I understand this case and why they'd lose. Just not the rest of how simple the TM is and how common it could be. Like trademarking "Gravel" with a picture of.... gravel.
Click to expand...
TM law is a morass needing a specialist in the law. And you can lose your TM if it becomes too popular, I could see this happening with grumpy cat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark
So you gotta always be vigilant and defending your TM, what a hassle (good for attorneys though).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top