National Pork Council: Lacitivist T-Shirts Not Kosher

43 comments

"I received a letter this morning from Jennifer Daniel Collins, an attorney at Faegre & Benson that represents The National Pork Board. It stated, for the most part, that my use of the phrase "the other white milk" violates their trademark on the phrase "the other white meat." As such, they've demanded that I remove the shirt, demanded that the image of the shirt be removed from any site I know of, demanded that I destroy any shirts that exist with the logo and demand that I not at any point in the future use the phrase in a commercially profitable way."

Read the full story

Time to switch to Turkey Bacon...

Comments

This just in: people now

This just in: people now receiving cease and desist letters in the business world.

New slogan for T-Shirts

Pork, the Other Garbage Eating Animal

-flip side-

Copy of C&D letter

new slogan

"Faegre & Benson: Boldly milking where nobody has milked before"

snooze

Quote:
the lactivists causes that we fought for

My spouse and I got through two kids without having any lactivist causes to fight for. Funny that.

If you're that concerned that you're taking up causes to fight for your rights, try to do it without trampling on the rights of others. It belittles your cause. Now would be an appropriate time to respond to them with a 'you're right, it was a play on your slogan. I'm sorry, won't do it again'.

Cmon wheel, did these guys

Cmon wheel, did these guys sue Mike Myers for Fat Bastard's line, "Baby, the other other white meat"?

It's just too damn easy to get a trademark these days.

A play on someone's slogan

A play on someone's slogan does not necessarily constitute trademark infringement.

Sometimes it's bullying trademark holders who trample on other people's rights.

Toys r Us

Well, just try putting up a shingle that says Anything r Us and see how long it takes before they jump on you. They seem pretty sucessful, at least in the UK, where they've had several pot shots at small businesses who encroach.

sarcasm

Not to be confused with Toys r us? You have to admit it would be rather funny to sit in on a case where "Toy r US" was suing "not to be confused with Toys r us" for trademark infringement or claiming that the name was confusingly similiar.

Turnabout is fair play

IMO the lawyer in question should sent out a simple C&D letter. Unfortunately that lawyer went on to imply that the breast feeding mother also had some sort of "adult" agenda, which absolutely was not the case and which would have been glaringly obvious if anyone had taken the time to read the Lactivist blog.

Legalities aside, IMO for that lawyer to take something wholesome like advocating breast feeding of infants and try to turn it into something ugly and "adult" was just wrong and outragous.

So if the Nation Pork Board wants to be known for stomping on nursing moms and apple pie then so be it, I have a broad brush and I'll paint to order.

Slap them together, baby

The lactivists sure know how to get attention. It wasn't that long ago that we had this discussion.

>lactivists sure know how to

>lactivists sure know how to get attention

Ain't that the truth. I remember when a tit was just a tit, not a weapon. OK, OK, it was a weapon of sorts, but, umm, errr ...nevermind. Anyway, corporations had better learn to keep their hands off... ...umm, errr,...

not a lawyer but...

I seem to recall something about brand dilution...

If they don't at least try, they can't make a case that they still own, need, whatever the brand/slogan/logo/whatever.

But why come after you? Unless meat=milk, which it does not. You were referring to cow vs. human right?

What about blatant use of the "the other white meat" phrase? Just in a simple search of Google, there is "cat, the other white meat", "Squirrel: The Other White Meat", "GRANDPA - THE OTHER WHITE MEAT", "spam: the other white meat" (oops, may contain ham by-products), "Biobutanol - The Other White Meat". Seems like there are a lot of other fish to fry, who are actually infringing, before you drink the milk® and try to gag the lactavists.

Oh, I think the lawyers were

Oh, I think the lawyers were right in launching the C&D (but screwed up bigtime by implying a connection with porn interests). There's no doubt in my mind that she fully intended to make a word-play off their trademarked phrase, which technically put her over the legal line. But they forgot that here in the US, we've put a BIG shield of immunity around lactating women and there was no way to win the public-relations battle.

Necessary

Quote:
shield of immunity around lactating women

It's only because US society in general has such distorted and uninformed ideas about feeding babies that any discussion is necessary. If everyone understood that nursing one's baby is a healthy, ordinary fact of life, there would be little reason to say much about it, any more than we discuss the act of breathing.

Well, I'm going to hire a

Well, I'm going to hire a bunch of them to develop content, BW, hhh. Then, should someone get indignant about something as trivial as a few sentences just happening to match up with their site on the same subject, I'm going to tell them to back off. You better watch yourself, I have lactating women on staff. One more word out of you and they hit the 'blog' button.

For the record, and for my own safety, I'd better mention here that I LIKE lactating women.

cractavists

>>we've put a BIG shield of immunity around lactating women and there was no way to win the public-relations battle.

Because they are a very vocal bunch. Those lactating activists. Most of them are being supported by their husbands ... and/or the state (maternity benefits) and hence lacking an immediate "occupation"; they are fresh from their "victory" of a sucessful birth (probably under epidural/elective ceasarean), but confused about whether crowing takes precedence over playing the nine-month victim; they wallow in their superior abilities i.e., being able to breast feed when others around them can't, and want the world to notice that they don't need no bloo-dy breast pumps, they don't need no for-mu-la feeds. I'm superior because I CAN breast feed, it doesn't matter my two week old is on this picket line in the freezing cold. Their average family income is about 3x the nation's average (at a guess). Rich er, cows with not much else to do.

That most of them are still overweight from the pregnancy, suffering various forms of post-natal depression, and the shock of the sudden big responsibilities that come with having a baby to look after....don't help. IF YOU DON'T THINK I'M STILL BEAUTIFUL I'LL MAKE A BIG NOISE SO AT LEAST YOU'LL KNOW I'M STILL IMPORTANT.

Commendably, the large majority of nursing mothers, OTOH, simply get on with the job. They have not been on high alert for the slightest excuse to make a noise about their nursing rights. They enjoy their babies, and concentrate their efforts on being good mums. And, guess what, they DON'T have trouble breastfeeding whenever they want to. Like every nursing mother I know.

I've had a rethink: National Pork Board, I wish you all the very best. Sue the maternity bras off of the whingers.

Nice Yes, Truly spoken like

Nice Yes, Truly spoken like someone who's never been asked to feed their baby where people shit.

Nope, with three kids and

Nope, with three kids and hundreds of times my wife's had to feed in public, nobody asked her to feed our baby in the toilet. Not that it can never happen anywhere in the world but somehow I don't believe it happens often enough for a national campaign.

Wrong

Quote:
somehow I don't believe it happens often enough for a national campaign.

Whether or not you choose to believe it, it does indeed happen.

And, the astoundingly hate-filled attitudes you expressed earlier in this thread are enough to scare a lot of women away from breastfeeding in the first place, and drive them straight into the arms of the formula companies.

The issue does merit a lot of public education.

In short...

...lots of Americans are really stuck-up and overly prude and too easily shocked. Can I say that in public? Mind you, I'm not talking about US SEOs who post here and prolly have more than half a brain. I'm talking about regular people with an IQ below 100 (i.e. 50% of the population) who were brought up in the US under the notion that breasts are dirty and sex is icky and teenage pregnancies are better not mentioned at the dinner table.

Am I far off? Please correct me.

poor justification

None of that is justification for ripping off someone else's brand - and then feeling so righteous that when they complain about you're ripping them off, you crow about it publicly. Like, how could evil corporation complain, when we're just so darn RIGHT that we'll trample over everyone's rights, or their sensitivities - or anything. Because darn it all, we're right and screw you. Unless...did the pork folks suggest you not breastfeed in public? Or just that stop stealing from them?

Morally right to the point of not being accountable for their thieving actions, and indignant about it to boot. Not surprising.

Aren't satire ads allowed these days tho?

Even Master Google puts up with 'em.

Better yet, aren't they even beneficial to the original? {/rhetorical question}

The only reason for the porksters to fight against something like this would be to "milk" that effect IMO (pardon the pun).

To Wit (heh heh): ...lots of

To Wit (heh heh):

Quote:
...lots of Americans are really stuck-up and overly prude and too easily shocked. Can I say that in public? Mind you, I'm not talking about US SEOs who post here and prolly have more than half a brain. I'm talking about regular people with an IQ below 100 (i.e. 50% of the population) who were brought up in the US under the notion that breasts are dirty and sex is icky

I've known plenty IQ > 120 Americans like that, Wit.

In fact, I have been so amazed by the disparity in American "enlightenment" I have formulated an opinon on the cause. America is too young. It is juvenile, even. Barely a teenager in the cultural development department. And sadly, there is no cure for growing up except... getting old.

I'm blaming the Puritans

I'm blaming the Puritans that got loose from England and settled in - New England. heh.

nobody said they were stoopid

>> enough to scare a lot of women away from breastfeeding
One of the shrewd things the cractavists do is to confuse (in the public eye) disapproval of their militancy with ... disapproval of breastfeeding itself. Very smart ;)

That's probably behind the National Pork Board caving in. NPB, you're a bunch of lily livered jellyfish and spineless tit-suckers!

And, the astoundingly

And, the astoundingly hate-filled attitudes you expressed earlier in this thread are enough to scare a lot of women away from breastfeeding in the first place, and drive them straight into the arms of the formula companies.

Buckworks - You really sell nursing mothers short with that statement.

One of my sites is an older breast pumping site that is well known in the industry. I have read countless emails from women and have been there when my wife nursed our four children. I have never heard of mother being forced into the shitter to nurse her child. I have only read about it on national news where there always seems to be an agenda.

Point missed

Nebraska, that statement doesn't refer to nursing mothers, it refers to mothers who are scared away from breastfeeding in the first place by society's distorted attitudes.

Yes, you went far beyond simple disapproval or disagreement and I stand by my comment that your attitude is hatefilled.

>>Point missed

Huh, your statement still makes it sound like mothers are a weak, scared lot who run in fear of your perceived social issues.
I used to be involved with this demographic on a daily basis and just never heard anything about these so called problems other than from newsworthy activists.

for clarification

>>I stand by my comment
Fair enough. Just so I understand your position, do you believe my "hate" is for breastfeeding mothers ... or the activists?

So-called??

It's experiencing what you dismissively refer to as so-called problems that turns people into activists.

Example: Emily Gillette was no activist until *after* she was tossed off a plane for nursing her child.

Perceived social issue?? You betcha. It's being perceived because something is seriously wrong with the picture here:

The National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion reported in 2004 that

Quote:
The national average for mothers who exclusively breastfeed their babies for at least six months is low – 14.2 percent. Only Oregon had an exclusive breastfeeding rate of over 25 percent at six months.

http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pressrel/r040805.htm

That means American mothers fall far short of what's recommended by the World Health Organization, despite the fact that breastfeeding is significantly healthier for their babies *and* themselves.

I'll repeat: something is seriously wrong with this picture.

Both

Yes, you clearly hate the activists and you said enough judgemental and negative things in the thread a few weeks ago that I say you have some pretty mixed up attitudes to breastfeeding in general, despite your protestations to the contrary.

Of course it's society's fault if US moms are too busy/stressed

>>Emily Gillette was no activist until *after* she was tossed off a plane for nursing her child.
And in the previous thread we pretty much worked out that she wasn't tossed out for nursing her child. But, hey, why let facts get in the way of a good protest? :-)

>>some pretty mixed up attitudes to breastfeeding
Nope, I said not ONE thing against breastfeeding itself as I'm an ADVOCATE. Go read the thread again ;) You're using the same PR trick the cractavists use: If you're against our protests you're against breastfeeding itself.

Very smart ;)

>>Point missed

I'll repeat: something is seriously wrong with this picture.

Wow. You think American women are so weak and scared that they are allowing a few surprised looks to influence how they feed their children. Ridiculous.

I suggest you read Kipling's 'The Female of the Species' -- http://www.potw.org/archive/potw96.html

There are more than a few natural bodily functions that society generally prefers to keep private. Like it or not - breastfeeding where the breast and nipple are widely open to view is one of those functions. If a mother simply throws a baby blanket over the area there is likely never going to be a problem and it's not a problem for the baby either.

My wife is a laction consultant. I used to sell many hundreds of breast pumps each month and ended up as a phone LC for dozens of women every month for several years. In all my discussions I never heard of a single problem that you think exists.

It is your so-called problem. I am also bowing out because you're acting like a zealot/activist and it bores me.

Wise move, Nebraska

Me out too.

Nebraska and Yes

You are both dodging a major issue here:

Quote:
The national average for mothers who exclusively breastfeed their babies for at least six months is low – 14.2 percent. Only Oregon had an exclusive breastfeeding rate of over 25 percent at six months.

Since you guys (!!) know so much, please tell us what are YOUR thoughts about why American stats for breastfeeding are so low compared to what the World Health Organization recommends?

What are YOUR thoughts about what's happening to the other 75% - 85% of mothers?

Since you don't think disapproving social attitudes are part of the reason, then what is?

(... attitudes which permeated the badly written trademark complaint which triggered this thread ... recall that the Pork Board said ugly things which went far beyond the simple issue of possible trademark infringement.)

i don't think so...

Quote:
The national average for mothers who exclusively breastfeed their babies for at least six months is low – 14.2 percent. Only Oregon had an exclusive breastfeeding rate of over 25 percent at six months.

Exclusively breast feeding for 6 months? No supplemental formula or babyfood? Easy to see why that's so low in the US. Most babies wouldn't tolerate it. I breastfed all three of my kids but not exclusively for 6 months. They'd be starving and I'd be drained (literally).

If that stat is the best you have for whatever point you're trying to make, methinks you need a new one.

And the quote about scaring mothers away from breastfeeding...also ridulous. Most of us who of course breastfeed our kids don't really give a crap what the activists do or don't do. It's got nothing to do with our lives, our families and our babies.

here, a lactivist gives 15

here, a lactivist gives 15 common reasons new mothers state they don't wish to breastfeed*

http://www.wearsthebaby.com/share.htm

but in general it seems that

Quote:
National and international women's organizations could improve the conditions for breastfeeding by pressing for a prolongation of the period of maternity leave worldwide

- not everyone has the luxury of underpanting (in their nursing bra)

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1651-2227.2003.tb00491.x?journalCode=apa

*note that I, personally, neither know nor care if those are indeed the reasons women do not breastfeed to six months in the US, but I thought that since they were given as common 'excuses' by a pro breastfeeding site they would likely be acceptable in this context as reasons. My providing them does not mean I agree that they are good reasons not to breastfeed. My reading a pro-breatfeeding website does not mean that I am due to start lactating. All other disclaimers expressly included.

Warn the WHO

Quote:
Most babies wouldn't tolerate it.

You'd better warn the World Health Organization and its scientists, then, as they've clearly been taken over by the lactivist crackpots:

Quote:
A recent review of evidence has shown that, on a population basis, exclusive breastfeeding for 6 months is the optimal way of feeding infants. Thereafter infants should receive complementary foods with continued breastfeeding up to 2 years of age or beyond.

http://www.who.int/child-adolescent-health/NUTRITION/infant_exclusive.htm

Quote:
don't really give a crap

You don't have to ... but I'm glad someone like Jennifer does.

Most babies wouldn't

Most babies wouldn't tolerate it.

You'd better warn the World Health Organization and its scientists, then, as they've clearly been taken over by the lactivist crackpots:

Babies don't read the manual - just because WHO says it is good for them, does not mean that a) they want it for 6 months, or, b) you should force it on them.

Obviously its a case by case

Obviously its a case by case basis. My son and wife did it without supplemental formula just fine. The sweeping generalizations in this thread are really disgusting. They have a right just like everyone else to express their opinions and share their experience.

If you didn't experience the same thing then good, thats awesome. Asserting that because you didn't experience the same thing then there is no issue though is pig headed.

If the babies don't tolerate it...

...then I'd blame the mother (for eating too many chilies or whatever.) And modern doctors for not digging deeper to find the modern cause, but rather taking the easy way out and suggesting to move to formula instead. I bet they are sponsored LOL.

Also, I'm still convinced that if people would just choose one method or the other instead of being so stuck-up about it, the States wouldn't need Lactivists in the first place (not that I think they are needed now LOL). Extreme behaviour triggers extreme responses.

Lactation: the new

Lactation: the new high-traffic controversy forum topic. I'm off to get LactNation.com and milk-its-whats-for-dinner.com and GutMilk.com and MammaryLane.com and few others and build an empire....

I just love it....

Oops did I really say that out loud?

(as a controversial and slightly web-related subject I mean)

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.