nah they've been doing this to bakeries and companies for decades, they even had a beef with King's over their frownie brownies, which were created as a response to a smiley cookie controversy long ago. the smiley cookie company primarily exists to make smiley cookies for eat'n park because they go through so many of them at all the restaurants and use em for fundraisers and charity and such too, they only make a handful of other baked goods. they already donate a part of each cookie sale to charity too. its just trademark defense because lawyer nonsense is weird nonsense sometimes.
@@KristinaBakerSmithThat's why it might not even go through, this isn't a big deal unless it goes through. They're going to be able to countersue for legal fees back anyway.
The Smiley Company, is the holder of a large trademark portfolio worldwide,(in over 100 countries) including the Smiley Original Logo and the SMILEY name....That is the design itsself, not the cookie
funny you should mention that... Kings family restaurants introduced the Frownie, a brownie with an icing frown on it in response to an argument with Eat'n'Park decades ago about smiley cookies with another place. The guy who created it trademarked it and took it with him when King's was sold to a crappy corpo years back, so they don't sell them anymore. Several food places in the region have had beefs with each other of sports team rivalry levels for yeeeears, some of their nonsense was legendary.
You would think that the company would love to be mistaken for the other company helping people with disabilities. However, we see what kind of business they really are!
How would you feel if you worked decades to create your company and someone else with a good cause tries to take your company brand/name? The new company was being sloppy. They have to follow the rules and using the press to create guilt trip and using the public to do it isn't good.
You have an open and shut case if they're claiming the word "smiley" but you are "smiley FACE" One word can make a lot of difference, especially with all the others who haven't been sued.
Yes, but legally it really matters if there is brand confusion. The names are close enough to potentially cause this. Smiley sells a line of cookies nationally so there is definitely a potential for market overlap (as opposed to if the bakeries only sold within St. Louis and Pittsburgh), which doesn't look good for Smiley. And I love what they do, but it's unfortunately not legally relevant. They should probably set up a GoFundMe to raise money for a name change. (To keep their brand reputation, they can add more words to the end so it's Smiley Baking Confections or something).
Before I saw who posted this, I thought it was going to be part of the Utah ‘cookie wars’. I love the idea of this bakery. It can be difficult to find a job when you’re disabled, as I know personally. I’d love to help support this shop.
Corporate bullying in the name of “trademark”. They aren’t in the same market! Zero chance of confusion. Smiley Cookie may be characterized as RBF Cookie.
I live in pittsburgh and have eaten at eat n park dozens of times throughout my life: screw them their food is extremely basic corporate slop you can find at literally any corporate sit down restaurant there's absolutely nothing unique about them besides the "smiley cookie" which even then is just a crappy extremely basic royal icing cookie that doesn't even taste that great I hope this business flourishes instead they're doing incredible work
All their food is basically just microwaved frozen meals, pretty sure mcdonalds puts more effort into their food. I do like eat n park regardless, but them suing some random company in a state they have no plans to operate in is just insane.
@@thearcheduck8746 it genuinely doesn't surprise me the company is dying and at least in my experience and from past new reports of the local area they've always pulled this crap and been extremely petty
@@obsidianbarnowldesigns Trademarks have to be enforced or you can lose them and like it or not the Smiley Cookie has been the face of Eat N Park for decades.
@lolca What is it about bakeries that seems to rile people up? Masterpiece Cake Shop, Gibsons Bakery...the list is long. Such hatred for people who just want to bake treats for their customers
Isn't it fun when corporations do everything in their power to break the competition, this isn't JUST about the name, this is about going after him in any manner they can so they can knock him down a peg.
If you trademark something, you have to fight companies infringing on your trademark or you could lose your trademark. It's not that they're evil. It's just what they have to do in order to maintain the expensive trademark they own. On the flipside... If you're starting a company, you really need to pay attention to what you're naming your company. Because if you name it after a trademark, then you could be in this situation.
@@dgoddardYou do. However, in this case they should have a second opinion with a different trademark lawyer. There’s a history to both companies, which is likely documented, making smiley face cookies. There’s a history since sugar cookies have been made of every kid and their grandma making smiley face cookies. Eat N Park didn’t start making Smiley Cookies until ‘86 after another bakery made them for over 50 years. “Smiley Cookies” and “Smiley Face Cookie Co” are two different names. They are not using any of the other branding or logos. Common use words cannot be trademarked nor copyright; so they cannot own “Smiley” nor “Cookie”. There is no way they can trademark anyone drawing a smiley face just like circles, triangles, and whatnot cannot be trademarked. It has to be specific. They don’t have a mascot nor anyone dressed up like it. I think the lawyer didn’t do their due diligence in researching this time and just found a similar name and automatically sent out a letter.
Or you could just be a grown up company and say my bad didn't know it was trademarked, let me change that. I mean damn. Someone throws the word disabilities or charity around and you wanna throw out our legal system.
They want to trademark a smile? I hope Eat'n'Park goes firmly out of business. What a desperate, out-of-touch attempt that will yield nothing but bad press.
@DylonBridson why didnt you google to read about this? It happened in Australia. Singer Katy perry also had an interesting case with a property she wanted to buy. The church was involved.
The oldest son of the late Dale Earnhardt, the NASCAR race driver, was sued by Dale’s widow (not his mother, different marriage)over him using the name “The Earnhardt Collection” for his line of furniture. The witch actually thought she could control the name Earnhardt and prevent his own kids from using it. The judge thought otherwise, thankfully. He said that his son was an Earnhardt long before she was and he had every right to use his given name as he felt needed.
Smiley face cookie co is waay different than smiley cookies. Smiley is an adjective. Face is a noun. This is like them going after someone who has a company called smiley bug cookie co.
It is close enough for people to start thinking the companies are related. That's enough to cause a stir. Just change the name to Happy Face Cookies. Close enough but different and unique
Had a great pizza shop here locally using the name Goodfellas Pizza. They knew Robert DeNiro personally, had memorabilia on the walls, has great pizza. Then a chain from NJ moved in with the same name and issued a cease and desist. The chain pizza was awful & rather than be associated with them, the local shop rebranded. Sad.
Has anyone explained to this company no one is trying to infringe on their cookie empire they think they have? That these cookies are serving a purpose? I can’t see any good business not willing to make room in a name for a program for people with disabilities. If that business knows they are attacking this type of program they don’t deserve to be in business.
Smiley Cookie is owned by a Eat'n Park, a regional restaurant chain that nobody outside of Western Pennsylvania knows or cares about. The cookies are terrible. I have no idea why they even bother with them.
Always ignore cease-and-desist letters. They're meaningless. Don't waste money on attorneys and court costs until you're served with an actual summons.
@@sisterrachel8968"Why," you ask? Simple... that bigger company is picking on a small business over an issue that is really a non-starter ('Smiley Face Cookie' is not the same as those big shots over there at 'The Smiley Cookie Company'), especially when they could go after other businesses who ACTUALLY have the exact same name, or at least closer to it. Instead, they pick on this wonderful small business that hires disabled people to make these cookies.
Wow! i hope that company goes out of business. What a bunch of jerks! These people even help people with special needs. That other company going after them should be ashamed of themselves.
That's a stupid reason to just not own your own business. What your alternative? Work for someone else's business for the rest of your life? Where you're legacy?
That’s one of the points that caught my attention. The first thing that came to mind was a scene from Legally Blonde where Elle suggested in a class discussion as to why the guy was going after a single one-night stand child he’d helped create. Why isn’t he going after all the one-night stands. the professor replied - You’ve just won your case. So, yeah. What’s their beef against THIS particular company? Or does he plan to research and go after ALL the ‘cookie’ companies. Unless the name is trademarked (legally, not because he says it is) then they don’t have a case.
As someone who works with people with developmental disabilities, I love this idea. I would be buying so many cookies if I lived near there. God bless this noble bakery.
Trademark what? Congratulations, now smiley cookie will be known as the DB company that's trying to take meaningful jobs away from people with disabilities.
Obviously, the owner of Smiley cookie doesn't have a smiley personality. If I ever had purchased anything from them before, I certainly would never buy anything from them again!! 😡🤮 My sister has been a special Ed teacher for over 30 yrs & growing up, we were involved in visiting homes for people with disabilities. They are the sweetest people on the planet 🥰
eat n' park restaurants (that make and sell the cookies that sent out the ceaase and desist ) are only in PA, OH, and WV ,..their food and the cookies are just ok....best thing about them are the breakfast buffet and all the bacon you can eat..lol
@@vickiechandler3112 Leave them a comment on their corporate website. Be polite. Make it clear they've lost a customer (even if it's not a customer they've ever had before). Show them that we stand firmly against their actions.
Shameful business practice. In this age, people still skip beautiful opportunities to help their businesses. Instead they’d rather sue and look terrible to the public.
Yes, the smiley face emoji, as part of the Unicode standard, is considered to be in the public domain, meaning anyone can use it without needing permission as it's not subject to copyright restrictions; however, specific designs of the smiley face emoji created by individual companies might have copyright protection for their unique rendition. Smiley Cookie Company is a money grabber. Make your cookies with Yellow Frosting and a dark color for the face. THAT is NOT copyrighted.
I really don't think they have a case. Smileys are everywhere. They can't claim they originated the smiley cookie. Anybody could make one. Doesn't everybody make chocolate chip, oatmeal, peanut butter? I think they're rotten to do this. I will never, ever visit one of there establishments.
As iconic as the Smiley Cookie and Eat N Park is in the Pittsburgh (and surrounding region) area, this lawsuit needs to be thrown out. It would be different if Eat N Park was established in the St. Louis area prior to the start of the "Smiley Cookie Co.", however currently there is not one Eat N Park within the state of Missouri (or Illinois for that matter).
I despise companies like this. Like Frankfort trying to sue little bakeries from making cocoa bombs knowing they didn’t even sell them until they started making a come back from all the little bakeries.
@@jackpijjin4088protecting your trademark isn't the same as trying to destroy another company. What a weird thing to suggest. A cease and desist would be as far as it would go with a simple name change.
Look at you solving the problem instead of complaining about it. That level of reasonableness isn't wanted here! We just want to vilify cooperate America! lol
Leave EAT'n'PARK Restaurants a comment on their corporate website. Be polite. Make it clear they've lost a customer (even if it's not a customer they've ever had before). Show them that we stand firmly against their actions.
@@nickpatterson6099 I'm against what is obviously corporate lawfare against an organization that benefits and works with the most vulnerable members of society. This isn't about trademark infringement, this is a large corporation throwing its weight around, and targeting an organization that has operated under this name for.. how long? They've gone how many decades with the two entities co-existing? This is no more than bullying the most vulnerable people in society. If I was the CEO of that company? The one holding the other trademark? It's a simple choice: I would not engage in lawfare against people with disabilities making cookies. It's easy to be a corporate shill when you've obviously been raised without proper moral guidance and lack empathy for other human beings.
@@jonnyfendi2003 Sure you can still eat there, just you know don't tell them that. Go ahead and be like yeah I'm never eating at your place again They're reacting more to the letter than they are to your action. Of course other people who do act will reduce their money.
I'm offering up an idea. See if the company threatening the law suit has a valid copyright. If they do, ask if you can lease the use of the right for a token amount of money. Owners of valid copyrights are basically required to protect their right when they discover someone else violating their copyright. If they don't, they will lose their rights. The law forces them to be the bad guy in cases like this. The leasing idea is a good work around where everybody wins.
Whether you like it or not, Eat n Park has successfully encouraged many others to not infringe on their trademark. Originally this cookie was made by Warner bakery in Titusville Pennsylvania.
Well, the Pennsylvania company has had had the name trademarked since 1987, As a small business, even I knew to do a simple trademark search before naming anything...just because a new brand comes out with humanitarian mission doesn't make it right...just change the name, it doesn't have to change the mission.
Pittsburgh Smiley cookies have been a thing for longer than I've been alive. Sorry, but that's what it is. That's how trademarks work. Call them something else.
A soon as i saw the picture i knew it was eat n park. "Smiley cookie" and "smiley face cookie" are clearly different, and the design is also what one might call "legally distinct." Obviously not enforceable, but I'm sure Parkhurst, the parent company, is banking on him being unable to afford to fight it. Shame on them.
Cookie are a thing of the stupid past history now, it might be sound or illustrated as goodful wishful kind thing, but it is just (over-complicated) bread -> rice
Eat’n Park may very well have legal justification for suing The SmileyFace Cookie Co. But at the same time, suing a company that employs people with disabilities for a trademark infringement seems morally wrong, and can only serve to hurt Eat’n Park’s reputation.
If I lived near where this cookie Co that's sue that company that employees the disabled, well I'd boycott them and tell anyone I know too. That's just plain evil.
The irony is that after this, Smiley Cookie Co will be the ones needing a name change from all the bad PR
true since eat n park has already sued an other company in chicago over the use of the design./ name where they settled out of court
Yep!
nah they've been doing this to bakeries and companies for decades, they even had a beef with King's over their frownie brownies, which were created as a response to a smiley cookie controversy long ago. the smiley cookie company primarily exists to make smiley cookies for eat'n park because they go through so many of them at all the restaurants and use em for fundraisers and charity and such too, they only make a handful of other baked goods. they already donate a part of each cookie sale to charity too. its just trademark defense because lawyer nonsense is weird nonsense sometimes.
Not happening lol
Its not happening. People in Pittsburgh don’t even know about this story and are loyal to Eat n Park cause its a Pittsburgh staple.
OMG! Leave the man alone. He's creating jobs for people in need and what a wonderful business model! Keep doing good work.
Cry more
Agreed
That doesnt even matter. They are clearly two different business names.
@@KristinaBakerSmithThat's why it might not even go through, this isn't a big deal unless it goes through. They're going to be able to countersue for legal fees back anyway.
@@dangerkatdev It's a completely different product and name though.
Smiley shouldn't even be trademarked
The Smiley Company, is the holder of a large trademark portfolio worldwide,(in over 100 countries) including the Smiley Original Logo and the SMILEY name....That is the design itsself, not the cookie
So, will The Smiley Company now be sending a Cease and Desist letter to every little girl and teenager in the world?
I mean if Smiley was trademarked Walmart would win this case lol they used smiley way before any bakery lol
But, it is.
@@ajplays7241 They actually got in a trademark fight over that ended with them settling out of court.
Coming soon... Frownie Brownies.
funny you should mention that... Kings family restaurants introduced the Frownie, a brownie with an icing frown on it in response to an argument with Eat'n'Park decades ago about smiley cookies with another place. The guy who created it trademarked it and took it with him when King's was sold to a crappy corpo years back, so they don't sell them anymore. Several food places in the region have had beefs with each other of sports team rivalry levels for yeeeears, some of their nonsense was legendary.
I have one
YOULL BE RIIIICH.
"a safe place to cry" XD
i think it will be huuuuge with us ladies during specific times of the month XD
@@TheMichigami the pettiness ): lol
@nothanksplease no seriously there was another restaurant in Pittsburgh that had the Frownie Brownie, I still have the doll.
It's a cookie with a smile on it, trademark what?
that like saying someone wearing the same shirt as you is trademark infringement 😭😭
it's like how if you sing happy birthday and post it you can get a copyright claim. everything has a patent and patent bullies exist everywhere.
The 🍪 is not trademark, the business name is trademark.
Talk to Gene Simmons who trademarked a bag with a dollar sign
“ Smiley face cookie co. “ Is not the same as “ smiley cookie “
But just change the name to upside down 🙃 frown cookie co.
LoL 😂
The very fact that someone wants to claim a trademark on smiley faces is a clear expression of everything wrong with this country.
It's the company name in dispute, has nothing to do with the product's decoration.
@@themonkeyhandit really shows people lack comprehension nowadays
Forest Gump trademarked that after vietnam dangit!
They both should be careful, they might have to answer to The Smiley Company like Walmart
@@themonkeyhandThat's the funny part about many of these trademark disputes, they can be pretty damn narrow.
You would think that the company would love to be mistaken for the other company helping people with disabilities. However, we see what kind of business they really are!
yes scrooges this company is doing a great thing just rotten to do this
The law requires that anyone who holds a trademark has to defend it, even when it’s dumb.
To be fair, it's a liability when you are aware of another company using a name that's very similar. And the business is also similar.
How would you feel if you worked decades to create your company and someone else with a good cause tries to take your company brand/name? The new company was being sloppy. They have to follow the rules and using the press to create guilt trip and using the public to do it isn't good.
@@lalotimeI might buy that from big national stores, but a local bakery? Come on. No one is going to confuse the two.
You have an open and shut case if they're claiming the word "smiley" but you are "smiley FACE"
One word can make a lot of difference, especially with all the others who haven't been sued.
100%
Yes, but legally it really matters if there is brand confusion. The names are close enough to potentially cause this. Smiley sells a line of cookies nationally so there is definitely a potential for market overlap (as opposed to if the bakeries only sold within St. Louis and Pittsburgh), which doesn't look good for Smiley. And I love what they do, but it's unfortunately not legally relevant. They should probably set up a GoFundMe to raise money for a name change. (To keep their brand reputation, they can add more words to the end so it's Smiley Baking Confections or something).
They'd still go after them for Smiley Baking Confections because they are all hung up on smiley and that company also being a bakery.
It worked for "the REAL Ghostbusters."
@kerikah I agree, it seems like people in these comments don't understand how trademarks work.
Bruh, they’re across the country. GTFO with that. There’s no competition and no risk of competition . This is harassment, plain and simple.
When it's settled the headline should read "how the cookie crumbled"
Then Crumbl would go after them for the headline 😂
@@RaindropsOnLichen lol
So creative😅
...and the reporter should go on for five minutes making stupid recipe references. 🙄
That's from a movie, and would probably garner a trademark claim from the production company
"Smiley Cookies" needs to feel the wrath of cookie lovers that hate lawfare.
Boycott Eat n' Park?
Before I saw who posted this, I thought it was going to be part of the Utah ‘cookie wars’.
I love the idea of this bakery. It can be difficult to find a job when you’re disabled, as I know personally. I’d love to help support this shop.
Corporate bullying in the name of “trademark”. They aren’t in the same market! Zero chance of confusion. Smiley Cookie may be characterized as RBF Cookie.
RBF I'd send those cookies to the lawyer office!
I live in pittsburgh and have eaten at eat n park dozens of times throughout my life: screw them their food is extremely basic corporate slop you can find at literally any corporate sit down restaurant there's absolutely nothing unique about them besides the "smiley cookie" which even then is just a crappy extremely basic royal icing cookie that doesn't even taste that great I hope this business flourishes instead they're doing incredible work
All their food is basically just microwaved frozen meals, pretty sure mcdonalds puts more effort into their food. I do like eat n park regardless, but them suing some random company in a state they have no plans to operate in is just insane.
@@thearcheduck8746 it genuinely doesn't surprise me the company is dying and at least in my experience and from past new reports of the local area they've always pulled this crap and been extremely petty
@@obsidianbarnowldesigns Trademarks have to be enforced or you can lose them and like it or not the Smiley Cookie has been the face of Eat N Park for decades.
They are being targeted because of the special needs adults. They are easy targets for @holes.
@@jokerz7936 I only ate there and a handful of times and this trademark thing is another reason I wouldn't eat there again.
How horrible to go after this establishment!!!!!
@lolca What is it about bakeries that seems to rile people up? Masterpiece Cake Shop, Gibsons Bakery...the list is long. Such hatred for people who just want to bake treats for their customers
Oh its terrible being in business and making a lot of money! Darn it!
Isn't it fun when corporations do everything in their power to break the competition, this isn't JUST about the name, this is about going after him in any manner they can so they can knock him down a peg.
If you trademark something, you have to fight companies infringing on your trademark or you could lose your trademark. It's not that they're evil. It's just what they have to do in order to maintain the expensive trademark they own.
On the flipside... If you're starting a company, you really need to pay attention to what you're naming your company. Because if you name it after a trademark, then you could be in this situation.
@@dgoddardYou do. However, in this case they should have a second opinion with a different trademark lawyer. There’s a history to both companies, which is likely documented, making smiley face cookies. There’s a history since sugar cookies have been made of every kid and their grandma making smiley face cookies. Eat N Park didn’t start making Smiley Cookies until ‘86 after another bakery made them for over 50 years.
“Smiley Cookies” and “Smiley Face Cookie Co” are two different names. They are not using any of the other branding or logos. Common use words cannot be trademarked nor copyright; so they cannot own “Smiley” nor “Cookie”. There is no way they can trademark anyone drawing a smiley face just like circles, triangles, and whatnot cannot be trademarked. It has to be specific. They don’t have a mascot nor anyone dressed up like it. I think the lawyer didn’t do their due diligence in researching this time and just found a similar name and automatically sent out a letter.
Or you could just be a grown up company and say my bad didn't know it was trademarked, let me change that.
I mean damn. Someone throws the word disabilities or charity around and you wanna throw out our legal system.
They aren't even competition, corporations are just losers that need to pout and have a tantrum 24/7 to function
nickpatterson6099 you sound like you are the suing party.
Time to shut the greedy company down. DO NOT BUY SMILEY COOKIES FROM CORPORATE GREED, problem solved!
Guess smiley cookie will be going out of business soon
Fingers crossed
People have no back bone
They want to trademark a smile? I hope Eat'n'Park goes firmly out of business. What a desperate, out-of-touch attempt that will yield nothing but bad press.
It's been trademarked since 71. They're both in violation of infringement laws! 😬😬😬
This is as dumb as singer Katy perry telling Australian designer Katie perry to give up her trademark.
I have to look for an update on story.
Did that happen?
@DylonBridson why didnt you google to read about this?
It happened in Australia.
Singer Katy perry also had an interesting case with a property she wanted to buy. The church was involved.
Don’t forget that the judges had the audacity to mock the designer when they commented.
@psychedelicpayroll5412 thanks. I only read a small article.
The oldest son of the late Dale Earnhardt, the NASCAR race driver, was sued by Dale’s widow (not his mother, different marriage)over him using the name “The Earnhardt Collection” for his line of furniture. The witch actually thought she could control the name Earnhardt and prevent his own kids from using it. The judge thought otherwise, thankfully. He said that his son was an Earnhardt long before she was and he had every right to use his given name as he felt needed.
Smiley face cookie co is waay different than smiley cookies. Smiley is an adjective. Face is a noun. This is like them going after someone who has a company called smiley bug cookie co.
It is close enough for people to start thinking the companies are related. That's enough to cause a stir.
Just change the name to Happy Face Cookies. Close enough but different and unique
Had a great pizza shop here locally using the name Goodfellas Pizza. They knew Robert DeNiro personally, had memorabilia on the walls, has great pizza. Then a chain from NJ moved in with the same name and issued a cease and desist. The chain pizza was awful & rather than be associated with them, the local shop rebranded. Sad.
Has anyone explained to this company no one is trying to infringe on their cookie empire they think they have? That these cookies are serving a purpose? I can’t see any good business not willing to make room in a name for a program for people with disabilities. If that business knows they are attacking this type of program they don’t deserve to be in business.
Smiley Cookie is owned by a Eat'n Park, a regional restaurant chain that nobody outside of Western Pennsylvania knows or cares about. The cookies are terrible. I have no idea why they even bother with them.
Always ignore cease-and-desist letters. They're meaningless. Don't waste money on attorneys and court costs until you're served with an actual summons.
Fun fact: those Pittsburgh smiley cooks are the worst of the worst cookies you can buy!! They should worry about that!
Right! They are horrible now. 😂
@ they were good?
@@youtubesucks3393 you got me.
@@Outrunninaround. I remember the first time I put one in my mouth, I asked the waitress if they were edible where they were just for decoration lol
I truly hope you do a follow-up story on this! The inclusiveness created with these cookies needs to be protected❤
You can research this using google
Boycott time
Why
@@sisterrachel8968"Why," you ask? Simple... that bigger company is picking on a small business over an issue that is really a non-starter ('Smiley Face Cookie' is not the same as those big shots over there at 'The Smiley Cookie Company'), especially when they could go after other businesses who ACTUALLY have the exact same name, or at least closer to it. Instead, they pick on this wonderful small business that hires disabled people to make these cookies.
I was thinking this, seem like nitpicking to me.
Wow! i hope that company goes out of business. What a bunch of jerks! These people even help people with special needs. That other company going after them should be ashamed of themselves.
how are you gonna trademark an emotion
If they could find a way they would. This is why we need to bring insane asylums back.
Same way color combinations get trademarked and musical chord progression gets copyrighted. It's a dumb system that lasts too long.
Call them Happy face cookies or sun shine cookies screw Eat n Park
Part of why I wouldn't start a small business is because you could just get sued for anything.
Exactly
Once I learned this all my ambitions of opening my own business went out the window.
ALL BY DESIGN! DOES WALMART or TARGET SELL SMILEY COOKIES???? we are all being targeted!
That's a stupid reason to just not own your own business. What your alternative? Work for someone else's business for the rest of your life? Where you're legacy?
@@qutielove2208 Um, maybe staying at home and raising children? Continuing your genetic line is your legacy?
@@qutielove2208 tell em 👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾
they are going after this guy because A they perceive weakness, an easy win. and B if they can take down one they have precedent. and can do it again.
They can't pick and choose who to defend a trademark against. They have to go after everyone making smiley cookies or they can't go after anyone.
That’s one of the points that caught my attention. The first thing that came to mind was a scene from Legally Blonde where Elle suggested in a class discussion as to why the guy was going after a single one-night stand child he’d helped create. Why isn’t he going after all the one-night stands. the professor replied - You’ve just won your case. So, yeah. What’s their beef against THIS particular company? Or does he plan to research and go after ALL the ‘cookie’ companies. Unless the name is trademarked (legally, not because he says it is) then they don’t have a case.
Yeap!! Including every person and child that makes it at home for personal fun, fundraising bake sale, and/or classroom party.
Seriously?
As someone who works with people with developmental disabilities, I love this idea. I would be buying so many cookies if I lived near there.
God bless this noble bakery.
In my neck of the woods, Eat n Park is referred to as "Eat n Barf"
It seems we are even more correct in calling them as such now than ever before.
Trademark what? Congratulations, now smiley cookie will be known as the DB company that's trying to take meaningful jobs away from people with disabilities.
I wish I wasn’t in Delaware, I’m a disabled awareness speaker and I would love to buy some smiley cookies from other people like me
We are all "perfectly imperfect" 🙂
Obviously, the owner of Smiley cookie doesn't have a smiley personality. If I ever had purchased anything from them before, I certainly would never buy anything from them again!! 😡🤮 My sister has been a special Ed teacher for over 30 yrs & growing up, we were involved in visiting homes for people with disabilities. They are the sweetest people on the planet 🥰
eat n' park restaurants (that make and sell the cookies that sent out the ceaase and desist ) are only in PA, OH, and WV ,..their food and the cookies are just ok....best thing about them are the breakfast buffet and all the bacon you can eat..lol
@@vickiechandler3112 Leave them a comment on their corporate website. Be polite. Make it clear they've lost a customer (even if it's not a customer they've ever had before). Show them that we stand firmly against their actions.
The smiley cookie CEO better watch his back, if you catch my drift.
Shameful business practice. In this age, people still skip beautiful opportunities to help their businesses. Instead they’d rather sue and look terrible to the public.
Yes, the smiley face emoji, as part of the Unicode standard, is considered to be in the public domain, meaning anyone can use it without needing permission as it's not subject to copyright restrictions; however, specific designs of the smiley face emoji created by individual companies might have copyright protection for their unique rendition.
Smiley Cookie Company is a money grabber.
Make your cookies with Yellow Frosting and a dark color for the face. THAT is NOT copyrighted.
Copyright laws are getting out of hand...
Probably some lawyer's idea.
So do company’s go online to see if any other company in the country or world are unknowingly using their name or likeness?
What a scrooge.
Call them happy cookies😂😂😂😂
I really don't think they have a case. Smileys are everywhere. They can't claim they originated the smiley cookie.
Anybody could make one. Doesn't everybody make chocolate chip, oatmeal, peanut butter? I think they're rotten to do this. I will never, ever visit one of there establishments.
Their*
Can you imagine Chips A Hoy suing people for making chocolate chip cookies?
Smh..pathetic.
As iconic as the Smiley Cookie and Eat N Park is in the Pittsburgh (and surrounding region) area, this lawsuit needs to be thrown out. It would be different if Eat N Park was established in the St. Louis area prior to the start of the "Smiley Cookie Co.", however currently there is not one Eat N Park within the state of Missouri (or Illinois for that matter).
EXACTLY. They are in no way a competitive or financial threat.
I despise companies like this. Like Frankfort trying to sue little bakeries from making cocoa bombs knowing they didn’t even sell them until they started making a come back from all the little bakeries.
Just change it to "happy place cookies" cause cookies bring me to my happy place. Fun name, problem solved.
Some other nitwit will claim that too!
The problem is lawfare.
@@jackpijjin4088protecting your trademark isn't the same as trying to destroy another company. What a weird thing to suggest. A cease and desist would be as far as it would go with a simple name change.
Look at you solving the problem instead of complaining about it. That level of reasonableness isn't wanted here! We just want to vilify cooperate America! lol
@@smittysmeee😂 *Corporate America bro 😅
So so sad..
Needs to be a limit to what people can trademark. Not even colours are safe.
Don't give up❤I will never buy from the other company now. Can we order online with your company
SHAME ON THE COOKIE COMPANY. The bakery should be left alone! Let the people make snd sell the cookies! ❤
Leave EAT'n'PARK Restaurants a comment on their corporate website. Be polite. Make it clear they've lost a customer (even if it's not a customer they've ever had before). Show them that we stand firmly against their actions.
No. Im still eating there when i pass through. Sorry
@@jonnyfendi2003
You don't have to tell them that.
You're against them for protecting their legally own trademark? It's easy being a couch warrior but if it was your business you'd feel different.
@@nickpatterson6099 I'm against what is obviously corporate lawfare against an organization that benefits and works with the most vulnerable members of society. This isn't about trademark infringement, this is a large corporation throwing its weight around, and targeting an organization that has operated under this name for.. how long? They've gone how many decades with the two entities co-existing? This is no more than bullying the most vulnerable people in society.
If I was the CEO of that company? The one holding the other trademark? It's a simple choice: I would not engage in lawfare against people with disabilities making cookies.
It's easy to be a corporate shill when you've obviously been raised without proper moral guidance and lack empathy for other human beings.
@@jonnyfendi2003 Sure you can still eat there, just you know don't tell them that. Go ahead and be like yeah I'm never eating at your place again They're reacting more to the letter than they are to your action. Of course other people who do act will reduce their money.
How can you trademark a human emotion we all experience?
I'm offering up an idea. See if the company threatening the law suit has a valid copyright. If they do, ask if you can lease the use of the right for a token amount of money.
Owners of valid copyrights are basically required to protect their right when they discover someone else violating their copyright. If they don't, they will lose their rights. The law forces them to be the bad guy in cases like this.
The leasing idea is a good work around where everybody wins.
Imagine being triggered by a friendly company name………
This is so ridiculous. Where Luigi at?
Wow sour grapes over a cookie??? Ya can't even have a damn cookie anymore😢
You gotta be kidding??? Picking on people with disabilities is as low as it gets!!! This is horrible 🤬
Cry more
Just call them happy cookies.
That'd imply they add a different kind of ingredient.
Whether you like it or not, Eat n Park has successfully encouraged many others to not infringe on their trademark. Originally this cookie was made by Warner bakery in Titusville Pennsylvania.
What a jerk Eat n Park is. A smiley face should be open to anyone and should never be patented. Ridiculous!!
If you don't defend your trademark, you can lose it. It doesn't matter how sympathetic the violators make themselves look.
@@WUStLBear82 How does the boot taste?
Hasn't the courts already said that "Smiley face" can't be copyrighted.
Wasn't that invented by Forrest Gump⁉️😁
Please don't get the shirt manufacturers into this.😊😂
"Have a nice day!"
Well, if you have a trademark, you have to defend it.
Social media brings bad news when businesses get noticed for their online promotions. In the “old days” who would know?
Just change it to Happy Face cookie company , Only have to change one word.
Why not just shorten it to smile cookies or happy face or even just happy cookies.
My next door neighbor's dog won't shut up this morning.
Only good thing at eat n park is the breakfast buffet. Their cookies are nasty
Trademark and copyrights need a huge revamp
This type of thing is getting out of hand
Could make Mr. Bill's "Oh No" face on the cookies. 😮
Oh No Cookies 🤣
Not even from the same state. Copyrights have gotten ridiculous. You can't even use common words anymore.
Are you direct competition? No probably not. It’s such a common used word.
Unless Eat n'Park considers a restaurant 547 miles away from their nearest location to be "direct competition"...
Smiley face sent me a cease and desist for selling keychains with smiley faces.
Shame that the disabled are being targeted.
This is outrageous. Don’t let the other cookie person bully you
Well, the Pennsylvania company has had had the name trademarked since 1987, As a small business, even I knew to do a simple trademark search before naming anything...just because a new brand comes out with humanitarian mission doesn't make it right...just change the name, it doesn't have to change the mission.
Never ever let a cease and desist scare you, ever. Get an attorney.
Easy way to get dragged into court. Bad advice.
Something is making a positive affect on people?
It must be destroyed!
What is wrong with people?!?
I'm Bruce Nolan, and THAT'S how the cookie crumbled.
"The story is almost like a good recipe..." Reminds me of Bruce Almighty's cookie line
"And that's the way the cookie crumbles"
Thank you to the company for choosing to work with people with disabilities.
Pittsburgh Smiley cookies have been a thing for longer than I've been alive. Sorry, but that's what it is. That's how trademarks work. Call them something else.
UUmm. Our Smith bakery here has been making smiley face cookies since 1945. That's way before 1986. You can't trademark a happy face.
I hope he stays in business. I would love to have one of his " special made" cookies. 😊 ❤ from Florida.
Maybe don't infringe on trademarks?
Eat n Park must have filed this letter. So petty.
Its not like this is corporation, this is a single bakery. Wtf. Let them keep their name.
I would completely ignore that cease and desist order with great prejudice
So we can't make a smiley face y cookie omg give it a break literally or no one will even buy your cookies in fact We CAN make our own at home
Make yourself a comma while you're at it.
says the person with a room temp IQ defending a crappy mega corporation and putting down a small business doing genuine good
@@obsidianbarnowldesigns Eat n park (and by extension smiley cookies) is far from a mega corporation to be fair.
@@thearcheduck8746 fine maybe not mega but still definitely corporate bs where everything is half@ssed in the name of profit
@@Jirai_Grepher DANGER! DANGER! Will Robinson! Wild punctuation and spelling police on the loose!!
A soon as i saw the picture i knew it was eat n park. "Smiley cookie" and "smiley face cookie" are clearly different, and the design is also what one might call "legally distinct." Obviously not enforceable, but I'm sure Parkhurst, the parent company, is banking on him being unable to afford to fight it. Shame on them.
Cookie are a thing of the stupid past history now, it might be sound or illustrated as goodful wishful kind thing, but it is just (over-complicated) bread -> rice
Eat’n Park may very well have legal justification for suing The SmileyFace Cookie Co. But at the same time, suing a company that employs people with disabilities for a trademark infringement seems morally wrong, and can only serve to hurt Eat’n Park’s reputation.
They hired Greta Thunberg to make cookies? ROTF LMFAO 😂😂😂😂😂
“How dare you!” -Greta
You should respect your coworkers. Maybe you will get to frosting station eventually.
If I lived near where this cookie Co that's sue that company that employees the disabled, well I'd boycott them and tell anyone I know too. That's just plain evil.
Tim Hortons in canada has been selling smiley cookies for decades with proceeds going to charity. Try suing them
Actually it smile Cooke and it’s not their company trademarked name, the issue is over the company name not the cookie design
Have there been any updates?