And while Crumbl might be very annoyed that it suddenly finds itself competing in the marketplace alongside a former employee, none of that turns any of this into an actionable claim of trademark infringement.Īs a result, Dirty Dough launched a social media and billboard campaign to go along with its defense of itself in court. The problem is, well, here is the branding side by side. The one thing the company could hang this lawsuit’s hat on would be the depictions of branding on the packaging, but only if they truly are quite similar. Most of what is talked about in the quote above is simply not protectable via trademark. You alarm bells should already being going off if you know much about trademark law. “Specifically, Dirty Dough packages its cookies in boxes that perfectly fit cookies lying side-by-side, and that include whimsical, outline-shaped drawings, including a cookie with a bite taken out of it, has a weekly rotating menu, and includes a drawing in the shape of a cookie with a bite taken out of it in its décor and marketing,” the suit says. Sounds bad, until you get into the details. The second main claim was that Dirty Dough took some distinctive packaging that Crumbl felt constituted trademark infringement. That obviously isn’t the basis of any lawsuit that would be successful on the trademark claims, but is important because there was also the accusation of theft of trade secrets. First, the owner of Dirty Dough used to work for Crumbl. Crumbl’s suit against Dirty Dough claimed both theft of trade secrets and trademark infringement, the latter of which revolved around two major claims. In the middle of last year, we talked about an odd lawsuit between two bakeries, Crumbl and Dirty Dough. Mon, Oct 23rd 2023 07:45pm - Timothy Geigner
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |