# Chick-Fil-A bullying small business owner?



## CoopersDesignCo (Nov 14, 2007)

What do you guys think? IMO, Chick-Fil-A isn't bullying here. We should all protect our ideas, logos, and other intellectual property from those who are infringing. Despite what "eatmorekale.com's" grassroots mission is, they are infringing. What's your opinion?

NYT: &apos;Eat More Kale&apos; T-Shirts Chall


----------



## Hegemone (Oct 18, 2011)

CoopersDesignCo said:


> What do you guys think? IMO, Chick-Fil-A isn't bullying here. We should all protect our ideas, logos, and other intellectual property from those who are infringing. Despite what "eatmorekale.com's" grassroots mission is, they are infringing. What's your opinion?
> 
> NYT: &apos;Eat More Kale&apos; T-Shirts Chall


Unless they are making direct reference to their campaigne via a registered trademarked font or the like I don't think common phrases can be protected like that. apple tried this with "i" 

I believe, but i am not a lawyer, that Eat More Beef has more chance of being a trademark then eat more. Its too broad and since there isn't an image trade mark involved here. I think they have extended their reach and I am guessing they will loose if these guys lawyer up and fight back. Chick stands to loose some money if they are sued for legal fee and etc. This small company is not adding to confusion or impacting Chicks sales. No one is going to think that eat more kale is in any way tied to chick or its corporate identity. If they had a leg to stand on this would be taken care of.

I say eat more valarium root so dont call me in for infringement.

I agree with you we should all protect what is ours but we should also be aware that when we use common phrases we are running this risk. Eat More is just way to broad reaching.


----------



## rbforrest (Mar 20, 2010)

Love Chick-Fil-A. Hate kale. Oh, that's not what you were asking is it?

I think CFA is stretching a bit. They know they'll lose but remember this is publicity for them too. Maybe bad, maybe good, but publicity nonetheless. I think big guys do this crap for 2 reasons - 1. they get plenty of publicity 2. to let the guys who really are infringing know they aren't afraid to act.


----------



## kimura-mma (Jul 26, 2008)

Based on the association with the local agriculture, I think there is a proprietary purpose behind the use of "Eat More Kale" that has nothing to do with the Chick-fil-A trademark.

But what I find interesting (and this was mentioned in the AP article from last week) is that Chick-fil-A originally sent a C&D but did not pursue further action when it was ignored. And now the new claim references an "effort to expand the use" of the Eat More Kale mark. So perhaps it's this expanded use that is causing the problem? It's really hard to judge this one without more specific details.


----------



## wormil (Jan 7, 2008)

In the end it doesn't matter whether they have a valid case, in America the big company always wins as they will just suit you out of business.


----------



## Flagrant-T (Nov 11, 2009)

wormil said:


> In the end it doesn't matter whether they have a valid case, in America the big company always wins as they will just suit you out of business.


That's not always true (unfortunately its probably usually true though). 

There was a case around here where MicroSoft came after a college kid for re-selling some software he bought for the same price he bought it on eBay. He did most the work himself with a little pro-bono help, but he filed about 10 motions for every one the Microsoft lawyers filled against him.

Eventually it sounds like he did very well for himself in an out of court settlement. You never really hear the details of how these things end when the little guy wins because they are almost all out of court settlements with confidentiality/no-disclosure clauses.

The big guys just don't want you to know they can be beaten.

But I agree most people make the business decision that it is not worth the fight.


----------



## Louie2010 (Feb 26, 2010)

For anyone that might be interested there is an update with this case.



> The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office this week gave a “preliminary no” to Vermont-based folk artist Robert Muller-Moore regarding his efforts to protect his “Eat More Kale” T-shirt business. This ruling is based on Chick-fil-A's claims that the “Eat More Kale” phrase is too similar to its trademarked slogan, “Eat mor chikin.”


 
â€˜Eat More Kaleâ€™ Company Is Losing Against Chick-Fil-A in Trademark Battle | The Exchange - Yahoo! Finance


----------

