stories about: "ihop"
Back in September, we noted that restaurant chain IHOP (International House of Pancakes) was suing another IHOP (International House of Prayer), claiming trademark infringement. Trademarks are supposed to only cover the areas of commerce you're in, but IHOP (food) claimed that since IHOP (church) was serving food at some of its locations, it represented infringement. We doubted that there was much likelihood of confusion between the Rooty Tooty Fresh 'n' Fruity menu option and saving your eternal soul. Copycense alerts us to the news that IHOP (food) has now dropped the lawsuit against the church, as the two sides have agreed to settle the matter out of court, at what I can only guess will be a combination prayer breakfast and negotiation session.
by Mike Masnick
Fri, Sep 17th 2010 7:25am
from the rooty-tooty-fresh-'n'-godly dept
Via Consumerist, we learn that the International House of Pancakes, better known as IHOP to many, is suing a megachurch that goes by the name International House of Prayer -- and also known as IHOP. IHOP (the restaurant) does have a whole bunch of trademarks on the IHOP name, but those are supposed to be limited to restaurants and such. To deal with that, IHOP (food) is claiming that IHOP (church) is serving food at some of its locations -- though it's difficult to believe that anyone is confusing their Rooty Tooty Fresh 'n' Fruity breakfast meal with saying a prayer (even if some may claim an IHOP breakfast can be a form of religious experience). Of course, IHOP (food) is claiming "dilution," which has become popular these days, despite the troubling implications of dilution as a trademark concept. It does seem likely that IHOP (church) did come up with its name based on IHOP (food), but is that really so bad? Or do we just assume that people are too clueless to recognize the difference?