What is wrong with the legal system? This is...

Remove all ads!

Two cases recently in the news,

First Case
A Washington judge is suing a dry-cleaning company for $67 million for the loss of a second pair of trousers (the company paid compensation for the first pair but claim the have returned the second) of which $54 million is for advertising "Satisfaction guaranteed" and "Same Day Service" in the window.
How much do you think we could sue the American Justice system for, for their advertisment "Equal Justice Under Law" carved into the side of the United States Supreme Court building?
Or otherwise

Second Case
Kentucky Fried Chicken are looking to sue a small English Country Pub for use of the phrase "Family Feast" which they use on their Christmas menu for a meal of Guinness and stilton pate, roast turkey and Christmas pudding. How anyone could find the two "Confusingly Similar" (A requirement for trademark infringement) is totally beyond me.

 

I heard about the Washington judge - I also seem to recall the news report saying that he has been releived of his duties as a judge for bringing what certainly appears to be a frivolous law suit to court. The dry cleaning business appears to be perfectly reasonable. The first offered to pay for the replacement cost of his suit, and eventually upped their offer to $12,000 to pay for his time he spent driving back and forth to the cleaners to get this settled. Frankly, as a judge who should have some knowledge of the legal system, I don't see how he can hope to win this case. His specific suit is false advertising based on the "satisfaction guaranteed" sign on the store. IMO, the dry cleaners did try to satisfy him - by offering $12,000 for the mixup.

The Ketuncky Fried Chicken case is even stranger. The words are certainly similar, but what the two restaurants serve is clearly not similar. AFAIK, KFC doesn't even have any restaurants in the UK. It's not like they were losing business to this restaurant. Both seem frivolous IMO.

 

Mel Gibson reasently sued and won a case vs. a small danish brewery because they had an ale called Brave heart and apparently Mel felt it refered to much to his movie even though the beer name was split and didn't contained any images or references to his film. the brewery even pointed out that a movie from 1925 was also called Braveheart, so they felt Mel couldn't claim copyright, but Mel ended up winning the case.

i think they actually renamed the beer Mel as a joke.

 

Naturally both cases are very silly but what I want to know is how the hell KFC was able to trademark "Family Feast" in the first place. That is almost as silly as taking out a trademark on "Food" or "Chicken".

 

KFC does have restaurants in the UK. At least they did a few years back and I don't think they've quit UK.

Advertizing is serious business. Put a copyright on every single phrase and word combintaion you can imagine and start suing people.

McDonalds anyone?

 

Yes we still have KFC's and lots of them. This isnt outer Mongolia you know?

 

Of course. I wasn't trying to imply the UK was an under-developed 3rd world country or anything like that. It's just that I really don't know anyone who particularly likes KFC in the US, so the thought of it being popular enough to go international surprised me. Although I do understand it's more popular in the south. Still, unless there's some strange UK/redneck connection going on here, it still doesn't explain its popularity across the pond.

Now *that* is a very good point. I, too, was of the opinion that you couldn't copyright very common words, and there's nothing overly exotic about either of those terms. Moreover, it appears to local UK restaurant is using it as more of a descriptive term than a name for something like KFC. I don't know what a KFC Family Feast consists of, but given the limited variety of their menu, the smart money is on fried chicked, mashed potatoes, and biscuits, which is completely different from what the local restaurant serves.

 

KFC was actually the first American fast-food chain to come to the UK. They franchised the name - which was an absolute disaster and they gained the nickname Kentucky Fried Rat for a while.
McDonalds learnt from this and their first restaurants in the UK weren't franchises.

KFC in the UK is typically Fried Chicken or Chicken Burgers, and Chips (as in French fries). Never heard of them doing mash.
A Family Feast is apparently 8 or 12 pieces of Chicken, four fries, 2 large sides and a 1.5l (3 pint) bottle of pop.

 

I did not realize that the amount of fast food chains now counts as a serious measurer of industrial development. We only have Mcdonlads here of the big fast food chains. I guess we're somewhere together with outer Mongolia in development then.
To be quite honset I'd be very glad if the rest of them stayed out.

 

That's odd. In the states I don't think they do french fries - although it's been years since I've been to a KFC, so maybe that's something they've added. I know from all of the commericals that mashed potatoes are something they really advertise.

I got a chuckle out of you referring to the soda with English units (3 pints) as opposed to metric (1.5L). In an ironic twist, bottled soda and bottled water are the ONLY things sold in the US based on the metric system. That having been said, we don't have 1.5L bottles. The options here are 0.5L, 1.0L, and 2.0L.

 

KFC serves french fries instead of mashed potatoes pretty much everywhere outside of the U.S.A. Also, they have a lot of overseas restaurants. Based upon my trip last year, KFC appears to have by far the largest fast food market presence in China.

 

Well I love KFC, its my favourite fast food and I'd go there more often but its a little out the way especially with McDonalds on every corner.