Am I reading this wrong or do they just think they can steal the trademark because they're bigger? Now that I think about it, looks like they ripped off his logo too...
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...
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.