Ehhh…I’m not sure I’d call that an example of the law not sucking. Do you think anyone actually bought the Aldi version by mistake, thinking they were Lindt? Because that’s supposed to be the purpose of trademark law. It’s what separates trademarks from patents and copyright. The purpose is supposed to be to protect consumers, not just the companies. There are tons of store brand generics that look similar to their corresponding brand name originals, including having similar packaging. Are we going to ban all of those just to protect big corporations?
9 Likes
Legal Eagle (Devin Stone) has now released his own video announcing the lawsuit. For anyone who doesn’t know, Stone isn’t just some YouTube lawyer/influencer. He’s a legit Big Law litigator with some big time bona fides. Honey and PayPal should be scared.
ETA: He briefly mentions some other similar apps in this video, including CapitalOne’s. This lawsuit could end up being much, much bigger.
12 Likes
Good.
It’s quite noticeable LeagleEagle’s use of “I Believe” and “allegedly” throughout the video, lest he get hit with a libel claim.
8 Likes
There’s another YouTuber attorney who is a part of the lawsuit. Attorney Tom (Tom Kherkher). He’s a catastrophic personal injury lawyer in Houston who has gone after some pretty egregious corporate negligence cases that injured or killed employees. And one of the plaintiffs is the Charismatic Voice. I love her channel.
10 Likes
Attorney Tom has now released his own video explaining the lawsuit. It’s pretty good.
8 Likes
I can’t speak to the Lindt case specifically, but have you ever seen Aldi’s store brands? They’re like a masterclass in material design as far as looking suspiciously similar to the original without literally copying the design element-for-element. It goes well beyond the standard palette-and-font similarities that you see in other private label products. It’s closer to, like… finding knock-off Adidas on AliExpress. I’m kind of shocked they hadn’t been sued for this previously.
To be sure, I am not a laywer (and especially not an IP lawyer), but speaking as someone who has spent a lot of time browsing Aldi and not infrequently confusing the knockoff for the original (at least at a glance), I’m not sure we can dismiss the case on its merits so quickly.
(For fun, here’s a couple random ones stolen from the internet:)
9 Likes
That first one isn’t that different from Walmart’s version:
I think they’re both pretty distinct from the Cheerio’s original, most notably lacking the cartoon bee:
I dunno. Maybe Trademark law is stricter in Europe, but the Lindt ruling seems a bit much to me.
8 Likes
I’ve got to disagree with this assessment. To my eye, the Great Value one is in the same genre. On the other hand, the Millville one is one of those note-for-note not-quite-covers of a song that shows up in commercials not willing to shell out for the original.
8 Likes
Ok. Regardless, I’m not going to celebrate a legal victory for one large multinational corporation over another large multinational corporation, which will probably raise prices for consumers, as an example of the law not sucking.
9 Likes
Absolutely; there are no good guys here.
8 Likes
5 Likes
Not sure if this belongs here, but it’s a discussion on the law and crime, and what’s actually going on…
4 Likes
Here’s a funny one: the other day, I commented in a Reddit thread about how undocumented immigrants actually commit fewer crimes that natural born citizens, and I was told that had been debunked and obviously isn’t true because we have no idea how many crimes undocumented people have committed because they’re undocumented. “Duh.”
12 Likes
10 Likes
9 Likes
This was a procedural win for the plaitiff. The Court saw no reason to lift the stay on Dellinger’s firing pending a hearing in two weeks. But the dissenting judge believes the president shouldn’t have to work with someone he has fired, and the president has, in his view, full authority to fire Dellinger under his Article II executive powers.
Not so fast said the other two judges. The firing may have been illegal, even for the president. Better to let the lower court hear and fully decide that issue first.
If the Supreme Court grants review, though it still may decide not to, this will be a Rubicon moment for our system of justice. It could destroy what limits still exist upon the president to act unilaterally within the Executive Branch, even against independent prosecutors.
14 Likes
New Mexico spearheaded the lawsuit, filing it with Arizona, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.
What’s their argument? As Democracy Docket explains, “The plaintiffs argued that Musk, DOGE and President Donald Trump violated the Appointments Clause and the separation of powers principles of the U.S. Constitution.
“Musk has wielded the power of an official who would need to be formally appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, but he hasn’t gone through that constitutionally required process, the states argued.”
That might cause a judge to put the kibosh on all DOGE activity. Or even reverse everything it’s done, though that’s a far tougher ask.
An emergency hearing for a temporary restraining order is scheduled tomorrow morning before Judge Tanya Chutkan in D.C.
13 Likes
Their response will be that those are abnormalities and don’t count.
11 Likes
