You Can Sue For Anything These Days

Lounge By julzs71 Updated 24 Oct 2010 , 1:09am by TexasSugar

julzs71 Posted 22 Oct 2010 , 3:02pm
post #1 of 22

Did you know Buddy's show got sued for it's name.
I think this is dumb.

21 replies
CakeChica Posted 22 Oct 2010 , 3:21pm
post #2 of 22

I think someone may have had that name before the show. And I think there is now some confusion from it.

sweetjan Posted 22 Oct 2010 , 3:21pm
post #3 of 22

who sued him? for using 'cake boss', I assume...?????? icon_surprised.gif

scp1127 Posted 22 Oct 2010 , 3:22pm
post #4 of 22

They used a copyrighted name.

cakeandpartygirl Posted 22 Oct 2010 , 3:22pm
post #5 of 22

actually it's not!!!!! the person has used the name well before the show for software and they were asked to not use the name but they didn't care and used it anyway.

Herekittykitty Posted 22 Oct 2010 , 3:24pm
post #6 of 22

You may think this is dumb but if you were the owner of CAKEBOSS, a computer program that helps small cake shop (incl. home based) owners manage thier business you would not appreciate someone (particuarily a large media conglomerate who should have done due dillegence) making money off your protected name.

This small business took on a media giant and won, good for them for sticking up for themselves and what they have worked so hard for. thumbs_up.gif

Oh, and they are members of CC.

scp1127 Posted 22 Oct 2010 , 3:27pm
post #7 of 22

Copyrights are an important part of our economic system. It protects the companies who develop products and in turn protects the public from inferior copycats.

kansaslaura Posted 22 Oct 2010 , 3:29pm
post #8 of 22
Originally Posted by julzs71

Did you know Buddy's show got sued for it's name.
I think this is dumb.

I'm not sure you would think it was dumb if you had a product called Cake Boss and TLC went ahead, knowingly (from what I've read) and named their show that anyway.

tiggy2 Posted 22 Oct 2010 , 3:39pm
post #9 of 22

Just because you think it's dumb doesn't mean it's not illegal. What TLC did was wrong and they know it. They just thought they could get away with it because they have more money.

cupcake_cutie Posted 22 Oct 2010 , 3:47pm
post #10 of 22

I wasn't going to post on this because I knew that it was going to get get ugly, but I just wanted to say that people really need to research what they're talking about before you post your opinion on the World Wide Web without having all the facts. That is all. Back to cakin'. icon_smile.gif

Texas_Rose Posted 22 Oct 2010 , 4:01pm
post #11 of 22

The software has been around for a while now. From reading articles on the case, the reason that the software company (whose owner is a member of CC and a very nice lady, by the way) sued TLC is because they had already told TLC that they had a product with that name when TLC first announced that they were starting a show with the name, the niche market that the product and the show were designed to appeal to (that's us cakers) were the same group, and there was a good possibility of brand confusion, and because the software company's website was getting so much traffic after each show aired that the site would shut down. TLC also limited the company's ability to branch out and offer other products with the company's brand name.

Imagine how you'd feel if you had a small business, and suddenly someone started a big business with the same name. Then 99% of the traffic to your website and the emails you got were really meant for the big business, and you ended up spending all your time telling people they had the wrong website. That's not fair to the small business.

Not only that, but look at the recent ugliness with Remy. That might keep some people from wanting to buy the software, if they thought that the people on the show were the ones putting out the software.

Kitagrl Posted 22 Oct 2010 , 4:05pm
post #12 of 22

Yes Cake Boss software owned that first...

daltonam Posted 22 Oct 2010 , 4:05pm
post #13 of 22

Guys, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, I feel like the OP gets it.

FloraFlora Posted 22 Oct 2010 , 5:03pm
post #14 of 22

wow, I didn't know that software was not made by Buddy's associates until now.
I didn't even give it a second look since I don't like Buddy's show at all.
Now I wouldn't mind looking into this software, I might even buy it if I like it.

Shows how much this name thing affect their business! Start right from me.

indydebi Posted 22 Oct 2010 , 5:07pm
post #15 of 22

Disappointed in this thread. I thought it would be another story to add to my collection of stories such as the mother of the bride who saw 3 grapes on the floor and thought it was tacky, so she demanded a FULL refund. the caterer refused so she sued him. To paraphrase my caterer friend, he LET her take him to court where she was officially ruled an idiot! (and by the way SHE had to pay all the court costs! heh heh heh heh!)

FloraFlora Posted 22 Oct 2010 , 5:40pm
post #16 of 22

dito, I have to admit that I came in to look for some outrageous story too.

unrelated to cake/food, one of my friend got sued for replying to a mass invitation simply saying she won't go. One of the other recipients (not even the organizer) sued her for insulation. The court, of course, also ruled him as an IDIOT. I think he was talking about suing the judge for discrimination last time I heard.

funcakes Posted 22 Oct 2010 , 7:56pm
post #17 of 22

Business names are of great importance to the owners. A tiny pet grooming shop opened in my small town. They named the store Groomingdales. Yes, you guessed it. The large dept. store Bloomingdales sent a letter of cease and desist to the dog store claiming that the name was too close to their store's name and people would think it was associated with the dept. store. They won and the pet shop had to change the name. Now that is silly. If it was the SAME name okay, but come on!

scp1127 Posted 22 Oct 2010 , 10:41pm
post #18 of 22

funcakes, they would not have named it Groomingdale's if not for Bloomingdale's. You cannot profit from someone else's copyright.

funcakes Posted 23 Oct 2010 , 12:16am
post #19 of 22

I see your point. It, however, was a grooming business and the owner's name was Dale, thus Grooming Dale's They changed the name and it gave the local no-news newspaper something to write about. I guess everyone came out ahead.

scp1127 Posted 23 Oct 2010 , 12:13pm
post #20 of 22

An example of copyright law... if John McDonald wanted to open a hamburger restaurant, he couldn't. Again, without Bloomongdale's, he probably would have named his store Dale's Grooming, because Groomingdale's would have made no sense to the public. Multi millions of marketing dollars go into making a product or service a household name. That money is part of this country's economic makeup and results in employment and consumer spending. Without copyright protection, there is less incentive for big companies and entrepreneurs to invest in these projects, thus negatively impacting the economy.

Luffie Posted 23 Oct 2010 , 3:28pm
post #21 of 22

I wonder if the blunder (I'm being nice and saying TLC blundered by using the name, although I've heard here and otherwise they didn't give a crap and used the name anyways) has given the company cake boss a boost in sales? I looked into the software thinking that it was affiliated with the show.

I didn't purchase it, but it did make me look into it because I thought the product was related to the show...I would think the blunder boosted their sales?

TexasSugar Posted 24 Oct 2010 , 1:09am
post #22 of 22

Or someone could decide they didn't care for the show or Buddy and not buy the CakeBoss Software thinking it is from him and he'll make money off of it.

Quote by @%username% on %date%