Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Grumpy Cat Wants $600K From 'Pirating' Coffee Maker (torrentfreak.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the someone-hasn't-had-their-coffee-this-morning dept.

Eloking quotes a report from TorrentFreak: Grumpy Cat is not pleased, yet. Her owners have asked a California federal court to issue a $600,000 judgment against a coffee maker which allegedly exploited their copyrights (PDF). In addition, they want damages for trademark and contract breach, and a ban on the company in question from selling any associated Grumpy Cat merchandise. There are dozens of celebrity cats on the internet, but Grumpy Cat probably tops them all. The cat's owners have made millions thanks to their pet's unique facial expression, which turned her into an overnight internet star. Part of this revenue comes from successful merchandise lines, including the Grumpy Cat "Grumppuccino" iced coffee beverage, sold by the California company Grenade Beverage. The company licensed the copyright and trademarks to sell the iced coffee, but is otherwise not affiliated with the cat and its owners. Initially this partnership went well, but after the coffee maker started to sell other "Grumpy Cat" products, things turned bad. TorrentFreak adds: "The cat's owners, incorporated as Grumpy Cat LLC, took the matter to court last year with demands for the coffee maker to stop infringing associated copyrights and trademarks. After Grenade Beverage failed to properly respond to the allegations, Grumpy Cat's owners moved for a default, which a court clerk entered in early June. A few days ago they went ahead and submitted a motion for default judgement."

6 of 186 comments (clear)

  1. Seems about right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For once copyright is being used as it was intended. I'm not a fan of copyright in any sense, but when it's used like this, at least I'm not sitting here seething. Pretty damn obvious you can't just slap someone else's stuff on your coffee bags and expect they'll be OK with it.

  2. Re:Paying for pussy by Salgak1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Hence, the Kardashians. Who, from all I can conclude, are famous for being famous. . .

  3. Re:They want 600k by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They are asking for the maximum $150,000 per infringement. At least in this case there really is commercial scale abuse, it's not like the RIAA demanding $150,000 from some kid's parents for one song.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  4. Something is hinkey here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The defendant once licensed this IP and now infringes w/o license on new products.
    Either
    a) they now believe the IP is not licensable (in which case they would have responded in court) , or
    b) they are going bankrupt and don't have the $ to fight and don't care as they know they are going tits up

  5. Re:They want 600k by Rakarra · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Do you have a problem with the content of the sig?

    "SJW" is a completely useless term (it didn't used to be...). It means absolutely nothing now, as it's been so overused that it means anything at all, anything the speaker doesn't like. Now it's really only an indication that the speaker is a bit of a dullard, or has been entirely disconnected from the Internet since the start of GamerGate.

  6. Re:They want 600k by AK+Marc · · Score: 1, Insightful

    So when Philip Morris says cigarettes are safe, we should listen as closely as when the Surgeon General says they aren't?

    No, mr anonymous idiot. The source of a message matters.

    --
    Learn to love Alaska