Berry disappointing

Originally posted 2009-06-03 22:05:52. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Not a significant source of fruity nutrition or berry things

Not a significant source of fruity nutrition or berry things

Walter Olson:

“Plaintiff did not explain why she could not reasonably have figured this out at any point during the four years she alleged she bought Cap’n Crunch with Crunchberries in reliance on defendant’s fraud.”

Figured out … what?  You have to click the link to find out.  Let’s just say that CRUNCH BERRIES is a trademark and not a generic term.

Next lawsuit?  Couple sues for misrepresentation, claims to have been married at sea by Cap’n Crunch himself, who, it turns out, is not an actual Cap’n.\

UPDATE:  “Duped by the loops made of froot”! Via @MegLG.

email

Tags:

Author:Ron Coleman

I write this blog.

Subscribe

There are all kinds of social media formats to subscribe or otherwise follow the adventures of LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION®. Or see the posts-by-email option below.

6 Responses to “Berry disappointing”

  1. Joel G. MacMull
    June 4, 2009 at 1:58 pm #

    You’ve committed a boo boo(berry) (i kill me)! You can’t link to TESS.

  2. June 4, 2009 at 3:00 pm #

    Right you are! I have fixed it.

  3. James H
    June 5, 2009 at 3:42 pm #

    What kind of plaintiff’s attorney would agree to represent a plaintiff in this harebrained kind of case?

  4. Tal Benschar
    January 30, 2011 at 7:14 pm #

    “What kind of plaintiff’s attorney would agree to represent a plaintiff in this harebrained kind of case?”

    Maybe someone who took it on pro bunny.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Meg Langley Grainger - June 4, 2009

    Breaking news: Crunchberry cereal does not contain *actual* berries. Shocking, I say! Just shocking! http://ow.ly/b0HA RT @RonColeman

  2. Anne Glazer - June 4, 2009

    RT: @RonColemant LIKELY / CONFUSION Berry disappointing: Walter Olson: “Plaintiff did not explain why she could.. http://tinyurl.com/r97lgs

Leave a Reply