• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Dunkin' Donuts sued over "butter substitute"

MarcB

MarcB

Walk of Fame Participant
The surprising thing is that he actually won money as a result. No doubt Dunkin' Donuts decided it was cheaper to give him a few dollars to go away.

The things people get wrapped up about is often astounding.
 
OTOH - advertising "butter" when you actually use something by DuPont instead is false advertising (which most advertising is already).
 
landtuna said:
Perhaps not Dunkin' but I was thinking of the movie theaters mentioned by MarcB.
Click to expand...

And do we know for sure if those theaters really aren't using butter?

Often, when I go to a fast-food place and order a Coke with my meal but Pepsi supplies all the soft drinks for that chain, the cashier will ask "Is Pepsi OK?" I assume that's per order of the company that holds the contract with the chain, so as not to dilute its brand. Since both "butter" and "margarine" are generic terms, I've never been asked "Is margarine OK?" at the movies. Are the theater operators under any obligation to point that out? It really isn't "advertising," per se, as it's part of a one-on-one conversation, but I suppose that it could be important to someone who might haven an allergy to an ingredient in margarine.
 
CTListener said:
And do we know for sure if those theaters really aren't using butter?

Often, when I go to a fast-food place and order a Coke with my meal but Pepsi supplies all the soft drinks for that chain, the cashier will ask "Is Pepsi OK?" I assume that's per order of the company that holds the contract with the chain, so as not to dilute its brand. Since both "butter" and "margarine" are generic terms, I've never been asked "Is margarine OK?" at the movies. Are the theater operators under any obligation to point that out? It really isn't "advertising," per se, as it's part of a one-on-one conversation, but I suppose that it could be important to someone who might haven an allergy to an ingredient in margarine.
Click to expand...

Out here in the West "coke" is both a brand and a generic term for a soft drink so anyone will know what you mean if you ask for a "coke" but restaurants still tend to qualify the term and perhaps for the reasons you mention. When my wife had her restaurant a few years ago there was a big battle between the Coke and Pepsi vendors for the business. Seems Pepsi wins out because it is cheaper for the operator although most customers preferred Coke. I don't recall what the difference was in price but the Pepsi guy sweetened the deal with all sorts of advertising as deal closers. I seem to remember back in the old days Pepsi was first advertised as being the cheaper of the two and they also went to the bigger bottle sooner. That wasn't enough to get me on the Pepsi bandwagon though.

We also tend to call margarine by the generic "butter" but I will bet that might get you into a fist fight in MN or WI. Those folks take their butter seriously up there.

When I was in the Navy we were served real butter - even when we were in places where other forms of dairy did not exist. It had something to do with the gubmint supporting dairy prices and required the Navy to buy real butter instead of substitutes.
 
Last edited:
That's why ads for Band-Aids and Jell-O now specifically say "Band-Aid Brand Adhesive Bandages" and
"Jell-O Brand Gelatin Desert Mix". Past court rulings have held that once those names become commonly
used generic terms their copyright becomes null and void.
 
FreddyE1977 said:
That's why ads for Band-Aids and Jell-O now specifically say "Band-Aid Brand Adhesive Bandages" and
"Jell-O Brand Gelatin Desert Mix". Past court rulings have held that once those names become commonly
used generic terms their copyright becomes null and void.
Click to expand...

Poor Xerox and Kleenex. And Xerox became both a generic term for "a copy" and a verb "to copy". Poor, poor Xerox!

On a related note.....how does copyright affect radio station branding? There seem to be many duplicates but no word of law suits flying about.
 
landtuna said:
Poor Xerox and Kleenex. And Xerox became both a generic term for "a copy" and a verb "to copy". Poor, poor Xerox!

On a related note.....how does copyright affect radio station branding? There seem to be many duplicates but no word of law suits flying about.
Click to expand...

Doesn't iHeart own "Kiss"?
 
landtuna said:
On a related note.....how does copyright affect radio station branding? There seem to be many duplicates but no word of law suits flying about.
Click to expand...

There have been plenty of C&D orders and even a few lawsuits.

Some names, like "Kiss" and "The Beat" are owned by specific broadcasters who registered them. In some cases, a registration included "grandfathering" other stations using the names prior to the registrations. And in still others, the owner has licensed the name to operators in different markets.

The difficult issue is that a small streaming operation may be using a name and have prior usage rights in the whole US because the stream is truly national. Or a small station in Montana with a stream may have a name that, due to the stream, is national in coverage. These issues are generally resolved out of court via negotiations, settlements, rights payments, etc. So they are not widely publicized.
 
CTListener said:
Doesn't iHeart own "Kiss"?
Click to expand...

In a case like this couldn't Gene Simmons and his band sue over it? :rolleyes:

It's a lot like several years back when Radio Shack sued what was then called Auto Shack claiming they had the rights to the word Shack. They settled out of court and the auto chain changed their name to Auto Zone. But guess who's still around now and who's almost out of business??? I always thought that some business that had Shack in their name like ____'s Chicken Shack should have sued Radio Shack claiming they had the name first, but it's too late for that now. :rolleyes:
 
DavidEduardo said:


In some cases, a registration included "grandfathering" other stations using the names prior to the registrations. And in still others, the owner has licensed the name to operators in different markets.
Click to expand...

One of those must be the case with "The River." IHeart uses the brand in several markets, including Hartford (WHCN) and Albany (WRVE), but Boston rimshotter WXRV Haverhill is owned by a tiny regional chain and is also known as The River. Interestingly, all three have different formats. WHCN is classic hits, WRVE is hot AC and WXRV is AAA.
 
I think "I-Heart" also owns the brand "Wild". In November 2003 Beasley Media flipped "96.5 The Point" in Philly from Hot AC to Hip-Hop "Wild 96.5". Not long after I-Heart (then Clear Channel) owner of rival hip-hop station "Power 99" sent Beasley a C&D claiming ownership of the "Wild" brand. Beasley then changed the name of the station to "Wired 96.5"
 
landtuna said:
Does anyone over the age of 17 still go to the movie theater?
Click to expand...

Yes. Who do you think goes to see the non-franchise, non-superhero movies that dominate the Oscars? Sure, most don't do as well as the umpteenth installments in the Batman, Spider-Man and Star Wars sagas, but they make good money and draw mature moviegoers. Don't underestimate, in fact, the numbers of baby boomers and Gen X'ers who loved Batman, Spider-Man and Star Wars in their youth and still check out Hollywood's latest blockbusters based on them.
 
CTListener said:
Don't underestimate, in fact, the numbers of baby boomers and Gen X'ers who loved Batman, Spider-Man and Star Wars in their youth and still check out Hollywood's latest blockbusters based on them.
Click to expand...

I would not miss any of those! And I have my tix already for the "The Fate of the Furious" and "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2". "Kong: Skull Island" was also well done, as was "Logan". "Beauty and the Beast" is a timeless story well told again with just marvelous visual effects.

If you add in good "adult" movies like "Hidden Figures", "Hell or High Water", "A United Kingdom" and "The Zookeeper's Wife" there is plenty for me to see ranging from great widescreen action to some serious drama.

I do agree with Landtuna that a lot of the Oscar winners tend to be tedious, dark and obtuse. I'm a Top 40 radio person so my mindset is to entertain and not burden my audience, so I don't particularly care for that fare. After some boring and even disgusting experiences seeing Oscar winners that I had originally skipped, I tend to not go to movies where the leading journals say "prime Oscar candidate" in the reviews; as in a number of other matters, a portion of those in Hollywood just don't seem to get what the rest of the country wants.
 
CTListener said:
Yes. Who do you think goes to see the non-franchise, non-superhero movies that dominate the Oscars? Sure, most don't do as well as the umpteenth installments in the Batman, Spider-Man and Star Wars sagas, but they make good money and draw mature moviegoers. Don't underestimate, in fact, the numbers of baby boomers and Gen X'ers who loved Batman, Spider-Man and Star Wars in their youth and still check out Hollywood's latest blockbusters based on them.
Click to expand...

Of all my friends, relatives and other acquaintances I know of exactly one couple who are regular movie goers. The remainder tend to watch in their homes if they watch at all (myself included). I am not counting, of course, the young adult parents who take their kids to every new Disney movie that comes out.
 
landtuna said:
Of all my friends, relatives and other acquaintances I know of exactly one couple who are regular movie goers. The remainder tend to watch in their homes if they watch at all (myself included). I am not counting, of course, the young adult parents who take their kids to every new Disney movie that comes out.
Click to expand...

CineMark built a brand-new multiplex with reclining seating and reserved seats and opened it last year. Even on weekdays, afternoon attendance is running around 50% or better, and full houses all day on weekends and holidays are to be encountered for almost all films. Opening nights of major films, particularly franchise titles and expected blockbusters, are generally full, even at 10 PM to 11 PM show times.

Most of the attendees are seniors or approaching seniority, except weekends which have a good mix of Teens, Millennials, Gen X and Boomers. The most popular movies among the over-50 crowd are the ones I mentioned. I went to the opening night of Disney's latest version of Beauty and the Beast at a 9 PM showtime and it was full and there were no kids... all seniors. It was one of the few movies I've attended lately where the audience applauded as the credits rolled.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.
Back
Top Bottom