Comments about ‘D'oh! Salt Lake cookie company facing lawsuit over name’

So Pillsbury has the market on anything relating to War or cookies? What a sad day it is that someone else can't use their own twist on history.

So what if she received a letter from Pillsbury. It would be up to a jury to ultimately find any trademark infringement on her part, should Pillsbury actually take this beyond their initial attempt at sabre rattling. From what I see in the story, Pillsbury is making a big stretch anyway in it's claim that her name and product are the same as theirs. You go girl!

I am not a lawyer, so have no idea how the name thing will play out. But let me say, those are dang good cookies! So I wish her no ill in this and hope she can continue to grow her business and be successful.

The trouble HVH is she has to hire an attorney and pay legal fees to defend her position. The upfront expense is probably way beyond her financial situation. Too bad, because corporate is always the thug pushing the little guy (in this case gal) around.

What she needs to do is find another way to market her products and then whip Pillsbury's butt in the marketplace. Best of luck to her.

I need to go look her up and try some of these cookies.

Fight it on your own without an attorney. These sword rattling letters are common (as a result of a court ruling that companies must show that they have taken steps to protect their name if they ever want to sue down the road) and can often be resolved with a little common sense. Obviously the name My Dough Girl is not confusing with the Doughboy. At least I would be able to tell the difference.

Is there not a single intellectual property law firm in this state that will defend this fine lady's honor? In exchange for cookies for life in the breakroom maybe... Come on, someone step forward.

So what did the patent office say? They usually have the last word on patents and copy rights. This sounds like a case the federal government and patent office should defend and settle without lawsuits against a small business.

So, let's see the two trademarks.
Not a very satisfying story without seeing that.

This is a Beanie Babies-type of product promotion.

First, you get a product and then you accidentally use someone else's trademark on yours. (Dough Girl was NOT an unthinking decision.)

THEN, you get all kinds of publicity when that other company complains.

THEN, you call the media tell them how the big bad wolf is picking on ou.

Then, you've got all kinds of free publicity, Tabasco Beanie is a firestorm, and people feel sorry for you.

We don't know what other trademarks Pillsbury owns -- maybe they DO own "Doughgirl".

Best to check things out first.

Just call it "MY DOUGH" and save money on your sign.

Big corp's they think they own the world, all becuase people let them think it. This cookie lady would have a hard fight on her hands, its to bad that she should just change the name and move on. Another large corp being pathetic bully's to someone who takes little to no buisness from them..... Sad

Did she forget to mention that Pillsbury copyrighted the name Doughgirls already? That is why she can't use it. It doesn't matter is Pillsbury is currently using it, they own it. What if you started a business with a name that someone already had copyrighted--you wouldn't be allowed to use it either! Come on, change the name and move on. Why didn't she investigate the name before using it???

This story rings a familiar bell. There were two companies who went to court over the similarities of their burger business. The lesser one, looks like went out of business, the other was a chain franchise across the western states. The little guy is the one who suffers. Her kind of advertising and pin ups may be similar to the larger co, but the products is totally original. Right? That similarity could be modified along with a new name. Tami Cromar, you have made and established a great cookie sounds like, so move on without skipping a beat. You can just come up with a new business name.

So, my question is, "What is the new brand name for the cookie company?"

the courts usually have the last say in intellectual property matters, not the patent office.

Part of the problem is that the federal lawmakers expanded the rights of famous corporations a few years back with respect to the trademarks of those famous corporations. Before this expansion, a finding of trademark infringement had to be based on actual confusion or likely confusion between two trademarks. Under the expanded laws, the rights of a famous corporation can be infringed by any DILUTION of the famous trademark, even if there is no actual confusion.

But on the face of it "Dough Girl" seems to be thought of with "Dough Boy" in mind. So maybe it is fair that she should be prevented from profiting off of the fame of the "Dough Boy" mark, even if she is only indirectly doing so. Pillsbury has spent tons of money promoting its mark.

Another example of the bully on the playground.

I MUST know where to get some of these cookies. Thanks Pillsbury for letting us know about this small shop. It sounds like Pillsbury needs to take some chill "pills" and "bury" the hatchet. I'm NOT going to buy anything from Pillsbury for a while. I hope others do the same.

When you start off your business on literally a shoe string it is not surprising she didn't do her due diligence on the name. Something that would require a patent attorney if done properly. It is likely that she knew there could be an issue with using dough girl.
She got a lot of free publicity out of this.
Change the name and move on. I've always liked the name Richard's cookies.
After her very accomplished husband and head cheerleader.
Or tami's bowamis. I just made that up. Kinda catchy.

@RA: The law does not allow you to "copyright" a name. But I assume Pillsbury is simply claiming that "My Dough Girl" is so similar to the Pillsbury "Dough Boy" trademark that customers will be confused and this will harm the Pillsbury's business. Riiiiight.

I have no sympathy for Pillsbury and its bullying tactics. Even if this lady handles her case by herself without a lawyer, she'd probably incur so many costs that it wouldn't be worth it to win. Pillsbury knows this and is throwing its weight around.

As a result of this, I am no longer going to buy any Pillsbury products. Everyone who supports Ms. Cromer should do the same, AND let Pillsbury know why their sales are going to fall off.

What I find most disgusting about Pillsbury's behavior is the gag order.

Well, the big, fat, gluttonous bully called Pillsbury cannot shut me up.

I'm going to write their PR department a letter-- an actual piece of paper with ink in it-- telling them what swine they are for picking on this young lady. I'll mention that I am going to carefully examine any food I might buy in the future to make sure I never purchase anything from them again.

Then I'm going to email a link to this story to every person I have in my address book and suggest they do likewise.

I haven't heard her product before and looking switching to her goods. Good grief doughboy so much for being jolly fat guy!