NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/misc/legal/20004

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-16 | 1.9 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!kuhub.cc.ukans.edu!bryan
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Mars vs. The Green Ones
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 16 Nov 92 09:59:09 CST
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services
Lines: 33

I note that there's an interesting legal battle brewing over (of all
things) green M&Ms.

A small candy retailer is apparently marketing a candy-covered
chocolate product very similar to M&Ms. The product, called Just the
Green Ones, is being sold in jars. And part of the marketing scheme is
to imply that the product has the fabled "green M&M" power (i.e. the
old urban legend about aphrodesiac power).

Now Mars Inc. contends that 1. calling the product Just the Green Ones
infringes an implicit trademark interest Mars owns in the original
product, and 2. that the promotional ads (featuring small, round
cartoon characters which resemble the product with appendages and
faces) are an actionable copy of the M&M guys.

Now the law-student-to-be in me tends to believe that Mars will
probably lose on the first count ("The Green Ones" as a TM...come on,
guys!), but may well succeed on the look-and-feel action (they really
do look like the M&M guys).

But my evil half, the advertising student I currently am, wonders if
maybe Mars couldn't shut this competetor down more effectively by
surreptitiously starting a rumor that the Mars product _really did_
have an aphrodesiac ingredient in it, and that Just the Green Ones did
not contain the ingredient. If successful, this would short-circuit
the Green Ones marketing scheme. Even though I think it's being sold
as a novelty rather than a real sex aid, the rumor could still kill
sales.

Now, here's the misc.legal question: if it got out that Mars had
started such a rumor, what legal trouble might the company be in?

-Bryan