Grumpy Cat Wins $710k From Copyright Infringing Coffee

lol ... don't tell Apple I have an apple :D

If they were selling apples, that'd do it.

Grumpy cat is describing a cat. A fairly generic cat (a lot of persians look grumpy all the time... my niece calls them monsters, though).
 
  • Like
Reactions: WhoMe
like this
If they were selling apples, that'd do it.

Grumpy cat is describing a cat. A fairly generic cat (a lot of persians look grumpy all the time... my niece calls them monsters, though).
That's racist ;).
 
That's racist ;).

They all look the same to me. They are just lazy, entitled, bitchy cats.

Damn. I am racist. Don't get me started on pugs. Cute little shits, but they can be dumb as a box of rocks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WhoMe
like this
download_3.jpg

So true, can't stand the sound of Harleys... shitloads of noise, and bugger all happens.
 
If they were selling apples, that'd do it.

Grumpy cat is describing a cat. A fairly generic cat (a lot of persians look grumpy all the time... my niece calls them monsters, though).

Saying Grumpy Cat is a Cat is like saying Colonel Sanders is a Man.

The trademark covers Grumpy cat as a recognizable representative of a product, in the same way Colonel Sanders or Ronald McDonald are recognized and associated with their respective brands.

It's not that difficult to understand, and why companies have rabid packs of lawyers to pursue trademark violations. If you infringe on a trademark, you are basically taking advantage of the work put in to develop that trademark by the owning company.
 
So did the Internet coin the term Grumpy Cat or did the owner?

Wondering how trademarking a meme goes.
 
So did the Internet coin the term Grumpy Cat or did the owner?

Wondering how trademarking a meme goes.

Doesn't really matter. The owner registered the trademark, and as such is the holder of it. there have been cases in the past where people with names identical to a preexisting trademark could not use their names in such a way to infringe. If your name is McDonald, and you want to open a Hamburger stand, you better be very careful how you present your product.
 
Doesn't really matter. The owner registered the trademark, and as such is the holder of it. there have been cases in the past where people with names identical to a preexisting trademark could not use their names in such a way to infringe. If your name is McDonald, and you want to open a Hamburger stand, you better be very careful how you present your product.

Ya, I get that, but it's a weird situation where the public made up the name, not the person claiming trademark. It would have been like Montgomery Wards trademarking Monkey Wards or Taco Bell trademarking Taco Hell. Which is why I wondered who came up with the term. If the dude did in fact post a picture on Imgur or Reddit saying hey look at my grumpy cat, then I totally get it.
 
Im pretty sure they did not get a trademark on the sound .
You may be right, that withstanding, it did not stop them from fighting tooth and nail to get the trademark, and my point was Harley Davidson was not a California company, so it's not just California(ns) that do stupid shit out there regardless of what this board likes to say.
 
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.

That's so silly on Harley's part. Subaru should patent their just as silly boxer sound lol.
 
So true, can't stand the sound of Harleys... shitloads of noise, and bugger all happens.

They're not all bad some SV's, Ducatis, Buell, and even Harleys like the Sportster sound pretty awesome.

That almost glass packed raspy belch of some Harleys with aftermarket exhaust though is terrible and ear drum piercing
 
They should have fun not getting paid. Should have sought out a more reasonable damage amount.
 
The 1$ nominal fee is what the owner is getting. The rest of the 710k is going to the lawyers. The cat is only worth millions because there are enough lawyers convinced they can make a shit load of money from suing people for copyright infringement.

People don't seem to understand, legal matters are black and white. A legally binding contract between two legal business entities was violated and copyright was infringed upon. No judge can turn this case down, the prima facie is sound, and the judge looks bad in the appeal if a higher district accepts it.

As to how much money the owner should get, well that's what has taken 8 jury members and 2 years to figure out. 710k is probably about how much it costs to run a legal team and still turn a hefty profit. Don't forget it will still be another 2-5 years before Grumpy Cat LLC ever receives a penny.

But hey it makes this amazing news media story about how a cat can sue someone and "win" $710k.

The real winners in all of this, are the lawyers and the media outlets.
 
Back
Top