David Slays Goliath

Lounge By cakesdivine Updated 24 Jul 2010 , 10:44pm by PiccoloChellie

MommaDukes Cake Central Cake Decorator Profile
MommaDukes Posted 24 Jul 2010 , 6:32pm
post #31 of 37

[quote="cakeprof"]

Quote:
Originally Posted by LindaF144


Ha and I have had my own confusion stemming from the show. Since I only got here recently I was unaware of the software. I saw the official rep title and though how neat--they have a person from Carlo's here----haha I was so dumb!




I am with you! I thought the same thing, I've been using Kelly's white velvet wedding cake recipe and telling fam and friends it was from Buddy the Cake Boss! icon_redface.gif

I also thought the CakeBoss software was his DUH, I'm sorry Kelly. icon_redface.gificon_redface.gif

sugarshack Cake Central Cake Decorator Profile
sugarshack Posted 24 Jul 2010 , 6:53pm
post #32 of 37

ok, I read the ruling. So Kelly has to pay $10,000 in order for the injunction to be initiated? She has to cover any potential financial losses to Discovery by them having to change the name? I am no legal egal, but boy that seems wrong to me. Discovery either did not do due diligence, or they ignored her making them aware of her trademark before they proceeded with the show. Now she has to pay them for damages incurred by changing the name?

UGH....

Texas_Rose Cake Central Cake Decorator Profile
Texas_Rose Posted 24 Jul 2010 , 8:03pm
post #33 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarshack

ok, I read the ruling. So Kelly has to pay $10,000 in order for the injunction to be initiated? She has to cover any potential financial losses to Discovery by them having to change the name? I am no legal egal, but boy that seems wrong to me. Discovery either did not do due diligence, or they ignored her making them aware of her trademark before they proceeded with the show. Now she has to pay them for damages incurred by changing the name?

UGH....




I don't think she's paying them for damages. I think the court holds the money in case the ruling is overturned later on, in which case Discovery would get the money. They were asking for 10 million, which sounds like they hoped the court would give her a high bond that she couldn't afford to pay, and then Discovery could keep on doing what they want and ignoring her.

I could be understanding it wrong though...

luvmysmoother Cake Central Cake Decorator Profile
luvmysmoother Posted 24 Jul 2010 , 8:19pm
post #34 of 37

Congrats Kelly!!! I can't believe they knew Cakeboss was your company's name and they went ahead with the show's name anyways - just completely unbelievable!! Hope you recover all your legal fees plus some for the confusion and your time and troubleicon_smile.gif

sugahjunior Cake Central Cake Decorator Profile
sugahjunior Posted 24 Jul 2010 , 8:38pm
post #35 of 37

Not quite, sugarshack. When there is an injunction before a full trial (like here), the party getting the injunction has to post a bond that would cover the costs of the party who the injunction is against in case, at trial, the court (or jury) finds against the party who got the injunction. This sort of makes sense because the party who has the injunction against them will typically lose money as a result of having to comply with the injunction. And, if the injunction was entered wrongfully, the party who has the injunction against them should be reimbursed those costs.

Here, the court said that the Masters have to post a $10,000 bond to potentially cover Discovery's cost of rebranding the show. So, if there is a trial and Discovery wins, they get the $10,000. If it ends up costing Discovery more, they won't necessarily get that. They asked for a $10 million bond but the judge found that that would not be the cost of rebranding (likely they asked for an astronomically high number figuring that the Masters couldn't pay it). The court left open that they can go back with the actual cost of rebranding and ask that the court modify the bond. But even then, if the Masters win at trial, they would get that money back, not have to pay it to Discovery. So the only way Discovery will get any money from Jon and Kelly is if Discovery ultimately wins the case (and the court has already found that this is unlikely). If they win, Discovery gets nothing.

sugarshack Cake Central Cake Decorator Profile
sugarshack Posted 24 Jul 2010 , 9:37pm
post #36 of 37

ok, got it. makes sense. and yay to the judge for not doing that stupid 10 million bond. i think Discovery needs to pay kelly for the damages this brand confusion has cost her!!! and punative damages too!

PiccoloChellie Cake Central Cake Decorator Profile
PiccoloChellie Posted 24 Jul 2010 , 10:44pm
post #37 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by lanibird

I felt sorry for Buddy, too. Then I read the full 24-page ruling from the judge. I have an even greater loss of respect for Discovery.




Good lord. I finally had time to read the ruling.

Masters in late 2009 entered an agreement with a supplier to sell CakeBoss-branded cake decorating products. The first item offered was a cake decorating kit. Less than a month after sales began, Mr. Valastro contacted the supplier and stated that if it did not cease the sale of CakeBoss branded products, Discovery would take legal action.

Wow. Just wow.
I'll refrain from posting what I'm really thinking. Let's just say I hope Kelley & John go on to make a bazillion dollars in software sales and that Discovery and other related persons trip on an ant mound and bang their shin on a rock.

Quote by @%username% on %date%

%body%