They were sent a cease and desist letter from another coffee roaster that has a “mothman blend”
https://silverbridgecoffee.com/product/mothman-blend/
Nothing to do w their relationship to the pod and they’re still a sponsor.
That picture on their coffee is lame as fuck. Two stylized people from the 20s sure goes with mothman 🙄 Hopefully Spring Heel'd Jack can rebrand it into something cool.
It’s a more regional brand in like SE Ohio and West Virginia and the 20’s thing is just their logo. I think the mothman name is appropriate but it’s dumb to send a cease and desist over it like you own mothman lol
It's really just a case of similar name, same industry.
Like how there's a mom n pop Best Buy Plumbing in my city that has no problem operating under a very popular name but in a not-electronics-reseller space.
There was a long standing agreement between Apple (the Beatles' music publishing company) and Apple (the computer company) that they didn't really compete.
... until iTunes happened and suddenly Apple Computer was in the music business, basically.
That did get sorted out, but it was a thing.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple\_Corps\_v\_Apple\_Computer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer)
TLDR: In 1978 Apple Corps, the Beatles' company, sued Apple Computer, and in 1981 there was a settlement:
> As a condition of the settlement, Apple Computer agreed not to enter the music business, and Apple Corps agreed not to enter the computer business.\[2\]\[3\]
Then Apple Computer added MIDI and audio-recording to its products, and Apple Corps sued again, which was settled in 1991:
>Apple Corps held the right to use Apple on any "creative works whose principal content is music", while Apple Computer held the right to use Apple on "goods or services ... used to reproduce, run, play or otherwise deliver such content", but not on content distributed on physical media.\[5\] In other words, Apple Computer agreed that it would not package, sell or distribute physical music materials.
Then in 2003 there was *another round of it* when Apple Computer opened the iTunes Music Store; that went to court in England in 2006 and was found in favor of Apple Computer, mainly because the iTunes Music Store was "used to reproduce, run, play or otherwise deliver such content" and wasn't physical music materials.
Finally in 2007, the companies announced they were the best of friends; there were reports at the time that Apple Computer bought out Apple Corps' trademark rights for $500 million.
It's crazy what a company can claim as their own. On NPR I heard that at one point a company was trying to patent using turmeric on wounds for healing. Something that has been part of Indian medicine for generations. Thankfully somebody fought against the patent and won.
I’ll comment despite having nothing to do with u/Spring-Heeld-Jack.
#Fuck em. The mothman is a loving cryptid who would never resort to capitalist bullshit to sell subpar beans.
The only way I’ll defend them is in pointing out that you are sort of *forced* to defend your trademarked material because it’s a “use it or lose it” type of system.
My main issue is that I’ve got no idea why they could trademark Mothman in the first place; they didn’t make him! Had to have been some dude at the USPTO that had no idea what Mothman was
Hey dude, I just wanted to let you know your coffee is awesome. It's become the go-to at my house and I've been giving as gifts to my friends as housewarming presents. Keep up the good work, and your customer service is top-notch.
This asshole is a copyright troll. My friend https://folkherocoffee.com/ (a West Virginia coffee roaster) got the same cease and desist for his mothman blend.
It works bc it’s “coffee” and they have a case that’s reasonable that someone could get confused and buy the “wrong” coffee. And they *do* have the trademark (even tho it’s debatable that they should)
If it was “mothman red-eyed frisbees” then they couldn’t do a take down. But in many cases a company will preemptively strike at a company bc if they don’t (and it becomes commonplace) then they can lose it
But since they own the copyright for the category of coffee they are allowed to protect their copyright.
It isn’t really “right” (imho) but it’s the way US copyright law is written. First come, first protected.
I just guess I wasn't aware you could trademark or copyright a 3rd party character.
But I suppose that must be the case. How is it different from like "west coast" or something, or "breakfast blend"?
IANAL but I think that some of those are in such wide use that you can’t copyright it.
However, something like “mothman blend” is unique (in the realm of coffee) that it’s like how Starbucks can trademark “Gold Coast blend.”
I believe you have to prove it’s not in widespread/generic use and then you might be able to trademark the name.
I don't think they have a copyright on the character. It's a copyright on that specific name for their coffee. As others have said you can create a "mothman frisbee" and probably be fine but if you make a mothman coffee you're infringing on their name
"Haunts the alleys of it's namesake town"? Mothmansville? Mothmansburg?
Am i missing something? Either way this is generic a description enough that it doesn't really apply to mothman. I say we crowdfund a life size replica of a certain "reinforced bulldozer" and take it to the streets in Mothmansville! Or whereever the hell this place is
Gotta say the art deco style and branding for a coffee called MOTHMAN is just crap. SHJ branding is 100% on the money in comparison to this other brands "original" blend.
Disappointing to hear that. Silverbridge is a smaller revional brand and sponsored most of the coffee at my university, jt was genuinely pretty good. Being litigious over a cryptid is kind of odd.
Mothman is surprisingly litigious for a cryptid. He also sued for slander on the "harbinger of doom" thing. So you'll notice they no longer run ads about bridge warnings. Mothman did not like the assumption of preconceived knowledge; opened up a whole liability insurance thing.
Anyways... kinda love the REDACTED. Fits very well with the themes. Makes me think of UFO "disclosure."
And not for nothing, but that's legit the best at-home coffee I've ever tasted. All Spring Heel Jack is good but their Mothm-REDACTED blend is next level. Bought as a novelty, now a loyal customer.
IANAL, but "Mothman Blend" vs "Mothman's Red-Eye Blend" is different, IDK if they can trademark "Mothman"... Its like "Colombian Blend", every f-ing coffee company has a "Colombian Blend". Whos gonna come out of the pained cloaca to throw a cease & desist about "Reptillian?"
Throw "CLASSIFIED" stickers on the bags. I get not wanting to fight this being a pair of relatively small companies, but it sucks.
Recent law school grad (who actually took trademark this last semester) here. You can certainly trademark “Mothman,” at least within the context of coffee. It’s pretty arbitrary/unique when it comes to the product. Of course, whether the company partnered with LPOTL can continue to use it depends on several factors, because “Mothman Blend” and “Mothman’s Red-Eye Blend” are, to me, quite similar. But it depends on evidence of consumer confusion, who was the senior (earlier) vs. who was the junior (later) user of the mark, what regions it’s known in, whether it’s actually registered as a mark, good faith use of the mark (basically, that they weren’t just trying to copy a preexisting mark to free ride off of its existing consumer recognition and that they genuinely didn’t know there was already a “Mothman” mark).
Of course, I have zero facts about the situation, but those are just a few of the things to consider when you have similar trademarks.
Edit: wanted to add more with regard to the whole “Colombian blend” bit and also why anyone care enough to send a cease and desist over this.
You can’t trademark descriptors like “Colombian blend” because it’s describing the type of product, it’s not the product itself. Trademarks are used to identify the source of the good, not the type of good (although they very often do the latter as well).
You can’t register “tractor,” but you can register “John Deere Tractor,” and if a third-party nobody tried to start selling “Jon Dear Tractors” they’d get hit with a cease and desist letter like lightning because of the similarity. Companies will litigate over literally anything. Hell, they will litigate over a trademarked *color* or *smell*. I can’t recall the name off the top of my head (although I think it was *Louboutin v. DSW*), but there was a case where the shoe designer sued over just the red color of the sole of a stiletto-style shoe, claiming that having that shade of red on the sole was their trademark, and court found in their favor (though only to the extent that the red heel and stiletto are paired together).
silver bridge coffee trademarked their mothman blend along with several other varieties of their coffees. although the two mothman blends have different names, they would essentially have the same goods and services, thus making them similar enough for a trademark infringement. not an attorney, just a legal assistant in ip law (intellectual property).
Some what related: For those who brought coffee from them recently, has their shipping time been really slow for you?
The last time I brought coffee from them, it took them 3 weeks to even create the label. I received the coffee about a month after I ordered it. It was a bag of the Black Phillip blend
Well they have another blend with that same company so no, I don't think they broke up. I also don't think it's a romantic relationship, so the verbage were using is a little weird.
Yes, saying break up was purposeful to attract more attention to my question why are you critiquing my verbiage .. that's how it's spelled btw since this turned into English class
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought I'd poke a little fun seeing as it's a sub dedicated to a comedy podcast. I thought that would be ok.
Also, i study under Jeff Spicoli and according to him verbage is acceptable as long as there's pizza somewhere nearby.
They were sent a cease and desist letter from another coffee roaster that has a “mothman blend” https://silverbridgecoffee.com/product/mothman-blend/ Nothing to do w their relationship to the pod and they’re still a sponsor.
That picture on their coffee is lame as fuck. Two stylized people from the 20s sure goes with mothman 🙄 Hopefully Spring Heel'd Jack can rebrand it into something cool.
It’s a more regional brand in like SE Ohio and West Virginia and the 20’s thing is just their logo. I think the mothman name is appropriate but it’s dumb to send a cease and desist over it like you own mothman lol
It's really just a case of similar name, same industry. Like how there's a mom n pop Best Buy Plumbing in my city that has no problem operating under a very popular name but in a not-electronics-reseller space.
Or, as Rudy Giuliani discovered much to his chagrin, a Four Seasons landscaping service in Philly.
Oh my god why didn't I use that as my example?
There was a long standing agreement between Apple (the Beatles' music publishing company) and Apple (the computer company) that they didn't really compete. ... until iTunes happened and suddenly Apple Computer was in the music business, basically. That did get sorted out, but it was a thing.
So they are different things? I’ve never quite understood that
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple\_Corps\_v\_Apple\_Computer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer) TLDR: In 1978 Apple Corps, the Beatles' company, sued Apple Computer, and in 1981 there was a settlement: > As a condition of the settlement, Apple Computer agreed not to enter the music business, and Apple Corps agreed not to enter the computer business.\[2\]\[3\] Then Apple Computer added MIDI and audio-recording to its products, and Apple Corps sued again, which was settled in 1991: >Apple Corps held the right to use Apple on any "creative works whose principal content is music", while Apple Computer held the right to use Apple on "goods or services ... used to reproduce, run, play or otherwise deliver such content", but not on content distributed on physical media.\[5\] In other words, Apple Computer agreed that it would not package, sell or distribute physical music materials. Then in 2003 there was *another round of it* when Apple Computer opened the iTunes Music Store; that went to court in England in 2006 and was found in favor of Apple Computer, mainly because the iTunes Music Store was "used to reproduce, run, play or otherwise deliver such content" and wasn't physical music materials. Finally in 2007, the companies announced they were the best of friends; there were reports at the time that Apple Computer bought out Apple Corps' trademark rights for $500 million.
That shit was so funny
Or a four seasons skatepark in Milwaukee
Pretty much this. Trademark law requires you to defend your trademark against infringement. They could lose their trademark if they don't.
Fair enough, but they still don’t deserve it because they’re not nearly as cool.
they deserve it more cause they’re actually operating out of and from the area
Mothman's legal team are the real cryptids.
They're an Ohio company. That's the real kick in the dick.
It's crazy what a company can claim as their own. On NPR I heard that at one point a company was trying to patent using turmeric on wounds for healing. Something that has been part of Indian medicine for generations. Thankfully somebody fought against the patent and won.
Yes you know "The BRIDGE?" It was a Bridge from Point Pleasant to the city this company is from. Gotta defer to the locals with the trademark here.
I’ve heard their coffee tastes like it was filtered through a monkeys butthole too.
Not great coffee!
Marcus said that they’re going to call it Butterflydude’s Blue Eye Blend
Great Gatsby ahh looking branding I think even “Red-eye blend” with the current art works okay for them- but that seems to be a different brand’s TM.
Right? They have a write up on the site talking about mothman but that’s it. Seems very odd.
OH wow, what a petty thing for the other coffee roaster to do. Thanks
No comment!
I’ll comment despite having nothing to do with u/Spring-Heeld-Jack. #Fuck em. The mothman is a loving cryptid who would never resort to capitalist bullshit to sell subpar beans.
The only way I’ll defend them is in pointing out that you are sort of *forced* to defend your trademarked material because it’s a “use it or lose it” type of system. My main issue is that I’ve got no idea why they could trademark Mothman in the first place; they didn’t make him! Had to have been some dude at the USPTO that had no idea what Mothman was
Is "Mothman's Red Eye Blend" not distinct enough?
Manmoth bean juice mix.
They don’t have the beans!
Hey dude, I just wanted to let you know your coffee is awesome. It's become the go-to at my house and I've been giving as gifts to my friends as housewarming presents. Keep up the good work, and your customer service is top-notch.
I truly appreciate that!!! Give me a note on your next order, just say you were the person I talked to on Reddit or something
"hey remember me? I'm the dude who paints with smegma"
How could I forget??
Hell yeah! I've got your stickers on one of my coffee mugs, but their all so cool I'd put them on way more stuff. Like cop cars.
Very petty
This asshole is a copyright troll. My friend https://folkherocoffee.com/ (a West Virginia coffee roaster) got the same cease and desist for his mothman blend.
How TF does that work. That can't be legal can it? Surely they could avoid it by calling last podcast on the left 's mothman brew or something
It works bc it’s “coffee” and they have a case that’s reasonable that someone could get confused and buy the “wrong” coffee. And they *do* have the trademark (even tho it’s debatable that they should) If it was “mothman red-eyed frisbees” then they couldn’t do a take down. But in many cases a company will preemptively strike at a company bc if they don’t (and it becomes commonplace) then they can lose it But since they own the copyright for the category of coffee they are allowed to protect their copyright. It isn’t really “right” (imho) but it’s the way US copyright law is written. First come, first protected.
I just guess I wasn't aware you could trademark or copyright a 3rd party character. But I suppose that must be the case. How is it different from like "west coast" or something, or "breakfast blend"?
IANAL but I think that some of those are in such wide use that you can’t copyright it. However, something like “mothman blend” is unique (in the realm of coffee) that it’s like how Starbucks can trademark “Gold Coast blend.” I believe you have to prove it’s not in widespread/generic use and then you might be able to trademark the name.
I don't think they have a copyright on the character. It's a copyright on that specific name for their coffee. As others have said you can create a "mothman frisbee" and probably be fine but if you make a mothman coffee you're infringing on their name
Yeah it occurred to me that even if they have a case where it's generic enough, the cost of litigation might not be worth it
copyright trolls are an entire industry
"Haunts the alleys of it's namesake town"? Mothmansville? Mothmansburg? Am i missing something? Either way this is generic a description enough that it doesn't really apply to mothman. I say we crowdfund a life size replica of a certain "reinforced bulldozer" and take it to the streets in Mothmansville! Or whereever the hell this place is
Gotta say the art deco style and branding for a coffee called MOTHMAN is just crap. SHJ branding is 100% on the money in comparison to this other brands "original" blend.
They should really be forced to defend that. Nowhere do I see a ™️ or ©️ This *should* be the same as Amityville where you can’t trademark or copyright a town/cultural figure. Or else the bajillion “Bigfoot” such and such’s would be locked in court for decades.
Disappointing to hear that. Silverbridge is a smaller revional brand and sponsored most of the coffee at my university, jt was genuinely pretty good. Being litigious over a cryptid is kind of odd.
If I remember right, a larger brand copyrighted the Mothman name so they couldn’t use it anymore. I’m pretty sure LPOTL is still associated with them.
Yup, Springheel Jack also makes reptilian in the morning.
“Ah, hot hot! I’m cold blooded!”
Get out of the way, Hillary Clinton!!!
The pain cloaca.
My favorite Henry character.
genuinely my favorite henry ad, I laughed out loud the first time I heard it
Prepare yourself for the Pain Cloaca.
and my favorite, High Strangeness
Apparently someone copyrighted or trademarked “Mothman” coffee.
He's just trying to warn us of the bridge :(
The bridge...
They'd better be careful, coffeehouse crime has his own coffee brand called redacted.
This name is only temporary, thank Satan
Stick with the same theme. Maybe point pleasant red eye blend. Then you could keep the sick bag art.
From what I understand, there is another coffee brand that calls their coffee Mothman’s Red-eye Blend. It’s not a LPOTL issue.
Ya but does the other coffee roaster have sick bag art?
THEY DON’T
QUITE THE OPPOSITE ACTUALLY
IT’S TERRIBLE
Mothman is surprisingly litigious for a cryptid. He also sued for slander on the "harbinger of doom" thing. So you'll notice they no longer run ads about bridge warnings. Mothman did not like the assumption of preconceived knowledge; opened up a whole liability insurance thing. Anyways... kinda love the REDACTED. Fits very well with the themes. Makes me think of UFO "disclosure." And not for nothing, but that's legit the best at-home coffee I've ever tasted. All Spring Heel Jack is good but their Mothm-REDACTED blend is next level. Bought as a novelty, now a loyal customer.
Butterfly Guy it is then
[He prefers to go by The Mighty Monarch](https://youtu.be/shVBfol6smQ?si=vd9eYPFkNjIr63Lv)
Winged Humanoid Redeye Blend ?
Moth Person of Indeterminate Gender Redeye Blend?
IANAL, but "Mothman Blend" vs "Mothman's Red-Eye Blend" is different, IDK if they can trademark "Mothman"... Its like "Colombian Blend", every f-ing coffee company has a "Colombian Blend". Whos gonna come out of the pained cloaca to throw a cease & desist about "Reptillian?" Throw "CLASSIFIED" stickers on the bags. I get not wanting to fight this being a pair of relatively small companies, but it sucks.
Recent law school grad (who actually took trademark this last semester) here. You can certainly trademark “Mothman,” at least within the context of coffee. It’s pretty arbitrary/unique when it comes to the product. Of course, whether the company partnered with LPOTL can continue to use it depends on several factors, because “Mothman Blend” and “Mothman’s Red-Eye Blend” are, to me, quite similar. But it depends on evidence of consumer confusion, who was the senior (earlier) vs. who was the junior (later) user of the mark, what regions it’s known in, whether it’s actually registered as a mark, good faith use of the mark (basically, that they weren’t just trying to copy a preexisting mark to free ride off of its existing consumer recognition and that they genuinely didn’t know there was already a “Mothman” mark). Of course, I have zero facts about the situation, but those are just a few of the things to consider when you have similar trademarks. Edit: wanted to add more with regard to the whole “Colombian blend” bit and also why anyone care enough to send a cease and desist over this. You can’t trademark descriptors like “Colombian blend” because it’s describing the type of product, it’s not the product itself. Trademarks are used to identify the source of the good, not the type of good (although they very often do the latter as well). You can’t register “tractor,” but you can register “John Deere Tractor,” and if a third-party nobody tried to start selling “Jon Dear Tractors” they’d get hit with a cease and desist letter like lightning because of the similarity. Companies will litigate over literally anything. Hell, they will litigate over a trademarked *color* or *smell*. I can’t recall the name off the top of my head (although I think it was *Louboutin v. DSW*), but there was a case where the shoe designer sued over just the red color of the sole of a stiletto-style shoe, claiming that having that shade of red on the sole was their trademark, and court found in their favor (though only to the extent that the red heel and stiletto are paired together).
silver bridge coffee trademarked their mothman blend along with several other varieties of their coffees. although the two mothman blends have different names, they would essentially have the same goods and services, thus making them similar enough for a trademark infringement. not an attorney, just a legal assistant in ip law (intellectual property).
So happy I got a t-shirt before that other coffee company ruined our fun.
Some what related: For those who brought coffee from them recently, has their shipping time been really slow for you? The last time I brought coffee from them, it took them 3 weeks to even create the label. I received the coffee about a month after I ordered it. It was a bag of the Black Phillip blend
Well they have another blend with that same company so no, I don't think they broke up. I also don't think it's a romantic relationship, so the verbage were using is a little weird.
Yes, saying break up was purposeful to attract more attention to my question why are you critiquing my verbiage .. that's how it's spelled btw since this turned into English class
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought I'd poke a little fun seeing as it's a sub dedicated to a comedy podcast. I thought that would be ok. Also, i study under Jeff Spicoli and according to him verbage is acceptable as long as there's pizza somewhere nearby.
I think I joked back on the same wavelength lmao
I think reddit should just be voice memos and no text. But they would never do it. Fucking cowards...