Right Now, Nestle Could Sue Pawngo out of Business

[Joker]

Granted, Butterfingers are nasty and I hate the way that yellow crusty stuff gets stuck in my back teeth.

believe Wrecks...Buttertoes are far better....

 

[Bella*chick]

As much as I'd like to see Nestle sue them, they really don't have any grounds to stand on.

It's the same thing as Nestle suing me for taking ownership (by purchasing) of said candy bar and leaving it in a parking lot.

Granted, Butterfingers are nasty and I hate the way that yellow crusty stuff gets stuck in my back teeth.

They were always the first candy bars I dumped in the trash after Halloween.

 

[Lowercaseg]

Nestle may be able to make a claim against Pawngo under a trademark dilution cause of action. I doubt they follow through with anything here, however, it's possible a claim could be made. Basically, "Butterfingers" is a trademark owned by Nestle (note that copyright law is likely not relevant because copyright law protects original works of authorship, like novels, paintings, photographs, etc.). Butterfingers is a famous brand name of a candy bar. Product brand names are protected under trademark law. Nestle could make an argument that due to Pawngo using the Butterfingers mark in a publicity stunt for Pawngo's services, that unauthorized use of the Butterfingers brand by Pawngo confused consumers into thinking that Butterfingers could have been associated with the Pawngo publicity stunt. Also, Nestle could argue that the Butterfingers brand was negatively harmed, tarnished or weakened because of Pawngo's unauthorized use in their publicity stunt. For those interested, you can read more about trademark dilution here. Trademark dilution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

 

[slam]

We'd have better luck getting Anonymous to blitz their web site.

Or sending 10,000 takeout orders to their HQ.

 

[SyN65]

Lol, who cares. If NE won the SB and this happened in NY everyone here would be raving about it. It's pretty funny. (and butter fingers are delicious.)

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

Help me with your logic there.

How does:

@Butterfinger
Nestle Butterfinger
BTW Butterfinger had NOTHING to do w/ Boston stunt after the big game. A company bought our bars (like 7,200) & used 'em w/out our knowledge

.....translate into

'Pawngo didn't do anything legally wrong with our copyrighted brandname for their own gain in a controversial publicity ploy'?

I think the poster's point was that any anger Nestle may have would be tempered by the fact that the "wrong" was committed by someone who bought over 7,000 units of their product.

Of course the poster may be wrong- Nestle may think that they stand to lose more than 7,000 in sales from the hit to their image, or that a lawsuit could be a profitable venture (though they very seldom are)

 

[GoWhalers]

Ha ha -- I love the "blue collar" language of the Nestle Twitter response.

...bought our bars (like 7200) and used 'em without...

I have some insight into how corporate Twitter accounts are managed -- and believe me that was a highly DESIGNED response made to sound like an off-the-cuff answer from a fellow Boston fan.

Very clever of them!

 

[Lansdowne]

This may be an easy copout for Pawngo, but why not have them apologize face-to-face to Welker, and present him with a check for $1 million to the Wes Welker Foundation? It's a copout because it's more publicity for those scumbags but all that money going to Welker's charity would be much more important in the grand scheme of things.

The silver lining to all this is I think it's made Welker into more of a sympathetic figure than before. Because even though Welker didn't make the play, it wasn't for a lack of effort, and we sure as hell don't make it that far without him in the first place.

 

[Rob0729]

Personally, I don't care. It was a publicity stunt that got them less than 15 minutes of fame. If the Giants lost and Hakim Nicks made the key fumble and they dumped all those Butterfingers in Time Square, most people on this board would laugh.

To tell you the truth, I knew about the incident, but until this thread I didn't know the name of the company that pulled the stunt. That is how effective this stunt was to get their name out there.

 

[SteveBsFan]

The stunt itself was fine, if it wasn't directed at one specific person.

It was a terrible thing to do considering Welker is probably having a REAL hard time dealing with this, and I wouldn't be shocked to hear he was a bit suicidal. (It wouldn't be the first time an athlete became depressed over being the goat)

I'm generally not offended by much, but come on. These players are still people.

 

[shmessy]

As much as I'd like to see Nestle sue them, they really don't have any grounds to stand on.

It's the same thing as Nestle suing me for taking ownership (by purchasing) of said candy bar and leaving it in a parking lot.

Granted, Butterfingers are nasty and I hate the way that yellow crusty stuff gets stuck in my back teeth.

Not the same at all. You missed by a mile there.

In your example, you are not a corporation. You are not using 8,000 butterfingers. You are not making a statement based on events and the NAME of the candy bar.

Your analogy is one of the worst ones I've ever seen.

 

[resdubwhite]

Granted, Butterfingers are nasty and I hate the way that yellow crusty stuff gets stuck in my back teeth.

believe Wrecks...Buttertoes are far better....

First time I laughed here all week. Thank you sir.

 

[BadMoFo]

I get the feeling that this is as much as we'll see with this one, unless these other companies start losing some major dough.

To All of Boston, Wes Welker and Patriots Fans Across the Nation

I Apologize.

As a die-hard sports fan, I would like to sincerely apologize for a misguided and misdirected stunt that we did yesterday in Boston. In delivering a pile of Butterfinger bars to Copley Square in Boston, and a sign referencing Wes Welker, we were making a lighthearted gesture following Sunday’s hard fought game. We thought that Boston fans would get a laugh out of it. But, for many great Boston sports fans, it was taken offensively. Please accept my most sincere apologies. We got caught up in the moment, reacting to a suggestion that we thought would be funny, but we were wrong, and on behalf of everyone involved with Pawngo, I apologize.

We all make mistakes. Perhaps I need a Butterfinger candy bar myself.

Pawngo has been changing the world of providing credit to individuals and small businesses, and our business has grown dramatically in the past year. In the process of growing, we have received lots of attention from the press, talking about how we are opening up new financial options for many otherwise un-bankable people. However, this incident in Boston produced some press that we would rather not have.

We will not make this type of mistake again. We will double-down our energy and our focus on our customers, and will continue to distinguish ourselves with exceptional customer service and the most fair rates we can provide for borrowers who work with Pawngo.

To Wes Welker and the rest of the Patriots organization, we at Pawngo apologize for any hard feelings caused by what was only meant to be a light hearted gesture following Sunday’s hard fought game.

As sports fans it is easy to get caught up in the moment of the game, yet be assured that this in no way diminishes your efforts on and off the field. Thank you for your continued hard work and best of luck in the future.

Very sincerely,

Todd Hills, CEO-Founder
Pawngo.com

PS: There has been some chatter about Pawngo, and whether Groupon has any relation to us. We are NOT related to Groupon in any way, and we have no involvement with Groupon, and they have no involvement with us. The only similarity is that one of the several investment firms that invested in Pawngo is affiliated with two co-founders of Groupon. Pawngo is privileged to have some fantastic investors – Daylight Partners, Access Venture Partners, and Lightbank. Lightbank is the firm affiliated with the Groupon co-founders. That’s it – no other relationship than that. Hope this clears things up, and puts to rest any suggestion that Groupon and Pawngo have anything to do with each other.

 

[#56300ex]

Not the same at all. You missed by a mile there.

In your example, you are not a corporation. You are not using 8,000 butterfingers. You are not making a statement based on events and the NAME of the candy bar.

Your analogy is one of the worst ones I've ever seen.

Not sure where your attitude came from but whatever.

It doesn't matter if there's 1 candy bar or 1million candy bars. The worse thing they legally did was litter.

Also, why does it matter who committed the littering? It shouldn't matter if it's an individual, corporation, or non-profit organization.

Now, obviously we've seen some pretty surprising decisions handed down by our judicial system but this one would be really reaching.

 

[shmessy]

Not sure where your attitude came from but whatever.

It doesn't matter if there's 1 candy bar or 1million candy bars. The worse thing they legally did was litter.

Also, why does it matter who committed the littering? It shouldn't matter if it's an individual, corporation, or non-profit organization.

Now, obviously we've seen some pretty surprising decisions handed down by our judicial system but this one would be really reaching.

No attitude whatsoever. Just stating that the analogy was truly way off. Sorry you took offense. None was intended.

A corporation using 8,000 candy bars and another corporation's trademark for advertising/publicity purposes is in no way like an individual buying a candy bar and throwing the wrapper on the ground.

I'm sorry if you feel that pointing out the complete fallacy of that analogy was "attitude".

 

[LetsGoPats36]

Help me with your logic there.

How does:

@Butterfinger
Nestle Butterfinger
BTW Butterfinger had NOTHING to do w/ Boston stunt after the big game. A company bought our bars (like 7,200) & used 'em w/out our knowledge

.....translate into

'Pawngo didn't do anything legally wrong with our copyrighted brandname for their own gain in a controversial publicity ploy'?

Pawngo bought the butterfingers, legally.

Who the f*ck is Nestle, or anyone, to tell them what to do with the candy once it's purchased?

I'm sure Nestle is just fuming that they got paid what they asked for and a boatload of free publicity as a bonus.....

 

[jcdavey]

and so ends this case of nothing lol

 

[GronkesFiesta]

Too soon Pawngo, too soon.