[E-trademarks] Dirt Candy TM Dispute

Fri Feb 14 22:15:29 UTC 2025

My God, the rich Texas family seems insufferable to me. "We won the lottery
by buying property in Silicon Valley in the 1980s and selling it at an
exorbitant price during a housing shortage caused by strict zoning laws,
and now we want to be able to steal somebody else's property and pretend
we're too spiritual to worry about laws and money because we've already
gotten enough money to make sure our kids never have to get a job."

Regarding the conduct of the lawyers, I think that when somebody steals
your brand name, you should send your lawyers after them. The restaurant
owner has no obligation to spend time and energy working out a co-existence
agreement with somebody she has no connection to just because they decided
they want to infringe on her name. She should use her time and energy to
run her business and live her life.

On the other hand, if *my *client is the one whose application is rejected
because somebody owns a similar trademark, then I do advise my client to
reach out without getting me involved at first. But also, when my clients
use somebody else's brand name in the same broader industry, I make sure to
tell them with no sugarcoating, "You chose a name that was already taken.
The best course of action is to pick a new name."

—

Jeremy

Jeremy Peter Green Eche
Founder and Managing Attorney, JPG Legal

Office: (917) 268-7054 | Direct: (917) 310-2207‬

www.jpglegal.com
254 36th St, Suite B541
Brooklyn, NY 11232

On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 3:36 PM Sam Castree via E-trademarks <
e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:

> Agreed.  I've told many a client that, while I'd be happy to get involved
> in things, it can really change the dynamic when suddenly the lawyers get
> brought in.  Coaching from the shadows is often the way to go.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Sam Castree, III
>
> *Sam Castree Law, LLC*
> *3421 W. Elm St.*
> *McHenry, IL 60050*
> *(815) 344-6300*
>
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 2:29 PM Cumbow, Bob via E-trademarks <
> e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:
>
>> So glad to see that so many of my colleagues agree with what I've learned
>> during my time as an attorney: We always get a better results if we see
>> ourselves as collaborators rather than combatants.
>>
>> Bob
>>
>>  Cumbow
>>
>> Partner
>>
>> Miller Nash LLP
>>
>> 605 5th Ave S, Ste 900 | Seattle, WA 98104
>>
>> Direct: 206.777.7468
>>
>>  |
>>
>> Cell: 425.443.0990
>>
>>  |
>>
>> Office: 206.624.8300
>>
>> Email <Robert.Cumbow at millernash.com>
>>
>>  |
>>
>> Bio <https://www.millernash.com/professionals/robert-c-cumbow>
>>
>>  |
>>
>> Insights <https://www.millernash.com/firm-news>
>>
>>  |
>>
>> Website <https://www.millernash.com/>
>>
>> Our attorneys regularly offer insights to address the challenges faced by
>> our clients. To visit the Miller Nash industry-focused blog overview page
>> on our updated website: please click this link
>> <https://www.millernash.com/firm-news>.
>>
>> ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑
>>
>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message may contain confidential or
>> privileged information. If you have received this message by mistake,
>> please do not review, disclose, copy, or distribute the email. Instead,
>> please notify us immediately by replying to this message or telephoning us.
>> Thank you.
>>
>> ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> On Behalf
>> Of Eric Morton via E-trademarks
>> Sent: Friday, February 14, 2025 11:48 AM
>> To: For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal
>> advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
>> Cc: Eric Morton <emorton at clearskylaw.com>
>> Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Dirt Candy TM Dispute
>>
>> [EXTERNAL MESSAGE: This email originated from outside of the firm. Do not
>> click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know
>> the content is safe.]
>>
>> I heartily concur. I tell my clients to talk to me before they negotiate
>> and after they negotiate, but leave the lawyers out of the negotiations.
>>
>> --
>> Eric D. Morton
>> Attorney
>> Clear Sky Law Group, P.C.
>> 1300 Clay St., Ste. 600, Oakland, CA 94612
>> P: (510) 556-0367 / (760) 722-6582
>> F: (510) 751-4598
>> emorton at clearskylaw.com
>> http://www.clearskylaw.com
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> On Behalf
>> Of Carl Oppedahl via E-trademarks
>> Sent: Friday, February 14, 2025 11:29 AM
>> To: For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal
>> advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
>> Cc: Carl Oppedahl <carl at oppedahl.com>
>> Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Dirt Candy TM Dispute
>>
>>  Over the span of many years, I have seen many situations where the step
>> of getting lawyers into the situation made things far worse instead of
>> better.  Many times my suspicion is that most of the blame would lie with
>> one of the lawyers and not the other. That the blameworthy lawyer would
>> either consciously or subconsciously select the behavior path that would
>> make the most money for the lawyer, regardless of whether this would align
>> with the interests of that lawyer's client.
>>
>> There are many times where I ended up coaching my client about stuff, and
>> then I suggested my client speak person-to-person with the nonlawyer human
>> being on the other side.  And the clients would come back with a deal
>> sketched onto a cocktail napkin.  The lawyers were then told "make it so".
>>
>> And even then I can think of many times where once again the introduction
>> of the lawyers into the situation, post-cocktail-napkin, ruined
>> everything.  And again I would have the suspicion that most of the blame
>> would lie with one of the lawyers.
>>
>> Early in my law career some very seasoned lawyer tried to explain to me
>> what the phrase "attorney and counselor-at-law" might mean in a better
>> world.   That the service provider ought to be a counselor as well as (or
>> sometimes instead of) being an aggressor.
>>
>> On 2/14/2025 11:50 AM, Pamela Chestek via E-trademarks wrote:
>> >
>> > On 2/14/2025 10:23 AM, Miriam Richter, Esq. via E-trademarks wrote:
>> >> one month to rebrand is unrealistic in the best situation and use of
>> >> the term “unlawful violation” in a “supportive” C&D is not conducive
>> >> to warm and fuzzy feelings
>> > Hear, hear. The client asked for a "nice" cease and desist letter and
>> > this sounds anything but nice to me.
>> >
>> > Pam
>> >
>> > Pamela S. Chestek
>> > Chestek Legal
>> > PLEASE NOTE OUR NEW MAILING ADDRESS
>> > 4641 Post St.
>> > Unit 4316
>> > El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
>> > +1 919-800-8033
>> > pamela at chesteklegal.com
>> > http://www.chesteklegal.com
>> >
>> --
>> E-trademarks mailing list
>> E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
>> http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com
>>
>> --
>> E-trademarks mailing list
>> E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
>> http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com
>>
> --
> E-trademarks mailing list
> E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250214/80bbb8b5/attachment.html>