Chrissy Teigen still unreformed; cyberbullying and stealing ideas

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will never ever not be gleeful about her downfall because of what she did to Alison Roman.

Alison Roman is a disgusting piece of shit who copies traditional ethnic recipes and calls them her own.

And Teigen copies everyone else's ideas and calls them her own. She doesn't have an original thought in her bloated head.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like nobody has seen the picture of both boxes because they are nothing alike.

One is green or red on 3 sides and one is white all around.

Yes but both feature one white side that has a photograph of hand holding the product on a white background. The boxes are the same shape and size and both feature a similar details about "history of the brand." They both come with a baking utensil inside. They are not identical but a consumer might confuse the two since they are both selling packaged mixes. And that would be a problem for the Caker because they are a much small company with limited distribution. Teigen likely has a much larger reach, and if Teigen's product is sufficiently similar to confuse or "trick" consumers, it could cost the Caker opportunities and real money. This could actually threaten their business.

I think its borderline because the products do appear to different (it's not clear that Teigen's line has any cakes in it, whereas the Caker is exclusively cakes) and have very different price points (the Caker products are very high quality and have speciality ingredients, and a $25 price tag to match). But it's not accurate to say they look "nothing" alike. There is clear overlap, the biggest being the photo presentation.

You think people will be tricked even though the box is red or green and CT is white.

You think stores will shelve the cake lady’s boxes facing backwards?

Lol.

I don't think their product would be in the same stores. The price point is very different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like nobody has seen the picture of both boxes because they are nothing alike.

One is green or red on 3 sides and one is white all around.

Yes but both feature one white side that has a photograph of hand holding the product on a white background. The boxes are the same shape and size and both feature a similar details about "history of the brand." They both come with a baking utensil inside. They are not identical but a consumer might confuse the two since they are both selling packaged mixes. And that would be a problem for the Caker because they are a much small company with limited distribution. Teigen likely has a much larger reach, and if Teigen's product is sufficiently similar to confuse or "trick" consumers, it could cost the Caker opportunities and real money. This could actually threaten their business.

I think its borderline because the products do appear to different (it's not clear that Teigen's line has any cakes in it, whereas the Caker is exclusively cakes) and have very different price points (the Caker products are very high quality and have speciality ingredients, and a $25 price tag to match). But it's not accurate to say they look "nothing" alike. There is clear overlap, the biggest being the photo presentation.

You think people will be tricked even though the box is red or green and CT is white.

You think stores will shelve the cake lady’s boxes facing backwards?

Lol.

I think you could argue that a consumer familiar with the Caker mixes could pick up Teigen's product and see the extremely similar photo, same shaped box and similar details, and not realize it was a totally different product. And since Teigen's product sells for a lot less, they might think "Oh, this must be a cheaper version of that really good product I've had before -- great." The existence of the collaboration with Teigen on a Caker product could add to this confusion -- a consumer might assume that Teigen had been involved in the Caker products all along, or that Cravings had bought out the Caker, because they'd seen the promotion with the collaboration product. These confusion claims could be made even if the two products were not sold in the same stores. If the target demo is similar enough, you can argue Teigen is trying to capitalize on the brand good will that the Caker has spent years creating.

The thing about trade dress claims is that they hinge on (1) whether the product packaging will create confusion for the consumer, and (2) whether that confusion could result in the original product losing market share. The goal is to prevent people from just making a similar looking product and gaining market share based on the goodwill and strong reputation established by the original product.

The counterargument from Teigen would be that she has an established reputation in this market sector and that her branding for Cravings is recognizable enough not to cause confusion. There would be a weighing of factors to determine if that was true. I think it is to Teigen's benefit that the Cravings log is fairly prominently placed on the product. But I also think it was dumb to include such incredibly similar product photography, and that launching this product after the collaboration with the Caker was either lazy or antagonizing. If they'd never worked together, and if Teigen just changed the product art a little, this wouldn't even be an issue.

[Anonymous]

Good for her. Hope she makes a boatload of money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like nobody has seen the picture of both boxes because they are nothing alike.

One is green or red on 3 sides and one is white all around.

Yes but both feature one white side that has a photograph of hand holding the product on a white background. The boxes are the same shape and size and both feature a similar details about "history of the brand." They both come with a baking utensil inside. They are not identical but a consumer might confuse the two since they are both selling packaged mixes. And that would be a problem for the Caker because they are a much small company with limited distribution. Teigen likely has a much larger reach, and if Teigen's product is sufficiently similar to confuse or "trick" consumers, it could cost the Caker opportunities and real money. This could actually threaten their business.

I think its borderline because the products do appear to different (it's not clear that Teigen's line has any cakes in it, whereas the Caker is exclusively cakes) and have very different price points (the Caker products are very high quality and have speciality ingredients, and a $25 price tag to match). But it's not accurate to say they look "nothing" alike. There is clear overlap, the biggest being the photo presentation.

You think people will be tricked even though the box is red or green and CT is white.

You think stores will shelve the cake lady’s boxes facing backwards?

Lol.

I don't think their product would be in the same stores. The price point is very different.

You can buy Caker kits on Amazon. I'd be curious to know if Cravings intends to sell their kits there as well. Otherwise, the Caker mostly sells their kits a department stores or specialty boutiques because the price point is high and the idea is that you buy it for a special occasion, or it could be a luxury item to include in like a gift basket for a friend.

But the Amazon thing could create issues. I'm guessing Teigen's product is intended to be sold in grocery stores mostly, but that makes it likely it would wind up on Amazon, actually.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a lawyer and am really unsure of the legal merits of this case. I'd have to look much more closely not only at both packages but also at the universe of packaging in this market sector. Plus I'd want to know if the Caker had registered their packaging as trade dress in the US (which they might not have since they only recently moved to the US).

But from a non-legal standpoint, it seems obvious to me that if you want to maintain good working relationships with people, you should disclose to them that you are going to be launching a similar product to theirs before doing a collaboration, and you should make some effort not to avoid copying their product. I mean, if you don't care about good working relationships, do what you want and hire good lawyers. But while Teigen likely has a strong legal defense here, I also think the problem is that she behaved kind of shadily. Even if it turns out that most of the decisions were made by her team. It's HER team and its her name on the products.

I encounter this a lot. The best way to avoid getting sued is by not pissing people off, and you can do that while still pursuing your business objectives. What happens is people get lazy and sloppy, they assume everyone they encounter ice just a tool to be used in pursuing their own goals, and they make dumb mistakes that will cost them in good will and sometimes also in real money.

When you see someone who is perpetually the subject of controversy around their personal behavior or business practices, there's usually a reason for that. People who behave ethically and treat others well might get unlucky with the random vicious person who is out to get them or is jealous of their success. But if you are constantly the subject of controversy for your behavior, the problem is you.

Not sticking up for Teigen because I don't care about her either way. But from it doesen't seem like Teigen intended to launch her own line before their collaboration. Teigen came across the Baker product and she tweeted that she loved it. The baker saw the tweet and says she decided to shoot her shot and suggest a collaboration. She was pleasantly surprised when Teigen agreed.

That might actually be a mark AGAINST Teigen, because apparently the Caker found out about Teigen's product launch midway through the collab. If Teigen previously had no plans to launch a line of mixes, then was in the midst of a collaboration with people who produce mixes, and then suddenly Teigen is launching a line of mixes with some eerily similar packaging, that's actually a really damning timeline in terms of whether or not Teigen intended to copy the product. It makes it look like Teigen just straight up stole the product idea, right down to trade dress, and decided to launch it under her own brand. Sketchy.

Super sketchy. She is a horrible person.

[Anonymous]

Listen I cannot stand CT, but the only similarities I see is that they're both "boxes" that's it. The Caker is reaching on this one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like nobody has seen the picture of both boxes because they are nothing alike.

One is green or red on 3 sides and one is white all around.

Yes but both feature one white side that has a photograph of hand holding the product on a white background. The boxes are the same shape and size and both feature a similar details about "history of the brand." They both come with a baking utensil inside. They are not identical but a consumer might confuse the two since they are both selling packaged mixes. And that would be a problem for the Caker because they are a much small company with limited distribution. Teigen likely has a much larger reach, and if Teigen's product is sufficiently similar to confuse or "trick" consumers, it could cost the Caker opportunities and real money. This could actually threaten their business.

I think its borderline because the products do appear to different (it's not clear that Teigen's line has any cakes in it, whereas the Caker is exclusively cakes) and have very different price points (the Caker products are very high quality and have speciality ingredients, and a $25 price tag to match). But it's not accurate to say they look "nothing" alike. There is clear overlap, the biggest being the photo presentation.

You think people will be tricked even though the box is red or green and CT is white.

You think stores will shelve the cake lady’s boxes facing backwards?

Lol.

I think you could argue that a consumer familiar with the Caker mixes could pick up Teigen's product and see the extremely similar photo, same shaped box and similar details, and not realize it was a totally different product. And since Teigen's product sells for a lot less, they might think "Oh, this must be a cheaper version of that really good product I've had before -- great." The existence of the collaboration with Teigen on a Caker product could add to this confusion -- a consumer might assume that Teigen had been involved in the Caker products all along, or that Cravings had bought out the Caker, because they'd seen the promotion with the collaboration product. These confusion claims could be made even if the two products were not sold in the same stores. If the target demo is similar enough, you can argue Teigen is trying to capitalize on the brand good will that the Caker has spent years creating.

The thing about trade dress claims is that they hinge on (1) whether the product packaging will create confusion for the consumer, and (2) whether that confusion could result in the original product losing market share. The goal is to prevent people from just making a similar looking product and gaining market share based on the goodwill and strong reputation established by the original product.

The counterargument from Teigen would be that she has an established reputation in this market sector and that her branding for Cravings is recognizable enough not to cause confusion. There would be a weighing of factors to determine if that was true. I think it is to Teigen's benefit that the Cravings log is fairly prominently placed on the product. But I also think it was dumb to include such incredibly similar product photography, and that launching this product after the collaboration with the Caker was either lazy or antagonizing. If they'd never worked together, and if Teigen just changed the product art a little, this wouldn't even be an issue.

How would that happen though as the front of the boxes have nothing in common. One is red / green and the other is white. The consumer looking head on at the product would not see any similarity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh look, someone wants publicity and to make more money so she's making stuff up!!!

This. This is just misogyny in action.

Also, I can't wait to try the products.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like nobody has seen the picture of both boxes because they are nothing alike.

One is green or red on 3 sides and one is white all around.

Yes but both feature one white side that has a photograph of hand holding the product on a white background. The boxes are the same shape and size and both feature a similar details about "history of the brand." They both come with a baking utensil inside. They are not identical but a consumer might confuse the two since they are both selling packaged mixes. And that would be a problem for the Caker because they are a much small company with limited distribution. Teigen likely has a much larger reach, and if Teigen's product is sufficiently similar to confuse or "trick" consumers, it could cost the Caker opportunities and real money. This could actually threaten their business.

I think its borderline because the products do appear to different (it's not clear that Teigen's line has any cakes in it, whereas the Caker is exclusively cakes) and have very different price points (the Caker products are very high quality and have speciality ingredients, and a $25 price tag to match). But it's not accurate to say they look "nothing" alike. There is clear overlap, the biggest being the photo presentation.

You think people will be tricked even though the box is red or green and CT is white.

You think stores will shelve the cake lady’s boxes facing backwards?

Lol.

I think you could argue that a consumer familiar with the Caker mixes could pick up Teigen's product and see the extremely similar photo, same shaped box and similar details, and not realize it was a totally different product. And since Teigen's product sells for a lot less, they might think "Oh, this must be a cheaper version of that really good product I've had before -- great." The existence of the collaboration with Teigen on a Caker product could add to this confusion -- a consumer might assume that Teigen had been involved in the Caker products all along, or that Cravings had bought out the Caker, because they'd seen the promotion with the collaboration product. These confusion claims could be made even if the two products were not sold in the same stores. If the target demo is similar enough, you can argue Teigen is trying to capitalize on the brand good will that the Caker has spent years creating.

The thing about trade dress claims is that they hinge on (1) whether the product packaging will create confusion for the consumer, and (2) whether that confusion could result in the original product losing market share. The goal is to prevent people from just making a similar looking product and gaining market share based on the goodwill and strong reputation established by the original product.

The counterargument from Teigen would be that she has an established reputation in this market sector and that her branding for Cravings is recognizable enough not to cause confusion. There would be a weighing of factors to determine if that was true. I think it is to Teigen's benefit that the Cravings log is fairly prominently placed on the product. But I also think it was dumb to include such incredibly similar product photography, and that launching this product after the collaboration with the Caker was either lazy or antagonizing. If they'd never worked together, and if Teigen just changed the product art a little, this wouldn't even be an issue.

How would that happen though as the front of the boxes have nothing in common. One is red / green and the other is white. The consumer looking head on at the product would not see any similarity

I don't see how people are assuming they are so similar. What a load of crap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh look, someone wants publicity and to make more money so she's making stuff up!!!

This. This is just misogyny in action.

Also, I can't wait to try the products.

Chrissys bread and butter is fools like you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh look, someone wants publicity and to make more money so she's making stuff up!!!

This. This is just misogyny in action.

Also, I can't wait to try the products.

Lol the person who always defends celebrity women who do questionable thing by claiming misogyny is here.

Is it "misogyny" to take advantage of a female entrepreneur with a much smaller and more vulnerable business by stealing her business idea, packaging yours similarly to hers, and doing all this while launching a collaboration with her and failing to mention it? Just curious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like nobody has seen the picture of both boxes because they are nothing alike.

One is green or red on 3 sides and one is white all around.

Yes but both feature one white side that has a photograph of hand holding the product on a white background. The boxes are the same shape and size and both feature a similar details about "history of the brand." They both come with a baking utensil inside. They are not identical but a consumer might confuse the two since they are both selling packaged mixes. And that would be a problem for the Caker because they are a much small company with limited distribution. Teigen likely has a much larger reach, and if Teigen's product is sufficiently similar to confuse or "trick" consumers, it could cost the Caker opportunities and real money. This could actually threaten their business.

I think its borderline because the products do appear to different (it's not clear that Teigen's line has any cakes in it, whereas the Caker is exclusively cakes) and have very different price points (the Caker products are very high quality and have speciality ingredients, and a $25 price tag to match). But it's not accurate to say they look "nothing" alike. There is clear overlap, the biggest being the photo presentation.

You think people will be tricked even though the box is red or green and CT is white.

You think stores will shelve the cake lady’s boxes facing backwards?

Lol.

I think you could argue that a consumer familiar with the Caker mixes could pick up Teigen's product and see the extremely similar photo, same shaped box and similar details, and not realize it was a totally different product. And since Teigen's product sells for a lot less, they might think "Oh, this must be a cheaper version of that really good product I've had before -- great." The existence of the collaboration with Teigen on a Caker product could add to this confusion -- a consumer might assume that Teigen had been involved in the Caker products all along, or that Cravings had bought out the Caker, because they'd seen the promotion with the collaboration product. These confusion claims could be made even if the two products were not sold in the same stores. If the target demo is similar enough, you can argue Teigen is trying to capitalize on the brand good will that the Caker has spent years creating.

The thing about trade dress claims is that they hinge on (1) whether the product packaging will create confusion for the consumer, and (2) whether that confusion could result in the original product losing market share. The goal is to prevent people from just making a similar looking product and gaining market share based on the goodwill and strong reputation established by the original product.

The counterargument from Teigen would be that she has an established reputation in this market sector and that her branding for Cravings is recognizable enough not to cause confusion. There would be a weighing of factors to determine if that was true. I think it is to Teigen's benefit that the Cravings log is fairly prominently placed on the product. But I also think it was dumb to include such incredibly similar product photography, and that launching this product after the collaboration with the Caker was either lazy or antagonizing. If they'd never worked together, and if Teigen just changed the product art a little, this wouldn't even be an issue.

How would that happen though as the front of the boxes have nothing in common. One is red / green and the other is white. The consumer looking head on at the product would not see any similarity

People don't just make consumer decisions by looking at products side by side on a shelf. In fact, that's increasingly uncommon due to e-commerce. It's entirely possible that someone familiar with the Caker products would run an internet search for "fancy box mix", find Teigen's product, assume it was the same based on similarities in packaging and concept (again, they'd be looking at a photo that featured that familiar product photo with the white background and a similarly shaped box), and buy it thinking they are buying a product they'd had and liked. In which case Teigen would be benefitting from the Caker's brand.

I'm not saying it's a slam dunk but they are similar enough in both concept and presentation, and especially with the existing collaboration between the two, to make a claim of product confusion and argue Teigen's product is trying to benefit from the Caker's existing product good will. It's not a crazy case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a lawyer and am really unsure of the legal merits of this case. I'd have to look much more closely not only at both packages but also at the universe of packaging in this market sector. Plus I'd want to know if the Caker had registered their packaging as trade dress in the US (which they might not have since they only recently moved to the US).

But from a non-legal standpoint, it seems obvious to me that if you want to maintain good working relationships with people, you should disclose to them that you are going to be launching a similar product to theirs before doing a collaboration, and you should make some effort not to avoid copying their product. I mean, if you don't care about good working relationships, do what you want and hire good lawyers. But while Teigen likely has a strong legal defense here, I also think the problem is that she behaved kind of shadily. Even if it turns out that most of the decisions were made by her team. It's HER team and its her name on the products.

I encounter this a lot. The best way to avoid getting sued is by not pissing people off, and you can do that while still pursuing your business objectives. What happens is people get lazy and sloppy, they assume everyone they encounter ice just a tool to be used in pursuing their own goals, and they make dumb mistakes that will cost them in good will and sometimes also in real money.

When you see someone who is perpetually the subject of controversy around their personal behavior or business practices, there's usually a reason for that. People who behave ethically and treat others well might get unlucky with the random vicious person who is out to get them or is jealous of their success. But if you are constantly the subject of controversy for your behavior, the problem is you.

Not sticking up for Teigen because I don't care about her either way. But from it doesen't seem like Teigen intended to launch her own line before their collaboration. Teigen came across the Baker product and she tweeted that she loved it. The baker saw the tweet and says she decided to shoot her shot and suggest a collaboration. She was pleasantly surprised when Teigen agreed.

That might actually be a mark AGAINST Teigen, because apparently the Caker found out about Teigen's product launch midway through the collab. If Teigen previously had no plans to launch a line of mixes, then was in the midst of a collaboration with people who produce mixes, and then suddenly Teigen is launching a line of mixes with some eerily similar packaging, that's actually a really damning timeline in terms of whether or not Teigen intended to copy the product. It makes it look like Teigen just straight up stole the product idea, right down to trade dress, and decided to launch it under her own brand. Sketchy.

NP.

+1

I don’t know much about CT and her history, but reading all this through, and looking at the similarities in the boxes, it doesn’t look good for CT. The other lady will be able to find a good contingency plaintiffs infringement lawyer to represent her on this case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like nobody has seen the picture of both boxes because they are nothing alike.

One is green or red on 3 sides and one is white all around.

Yes but both feature one white side that has a photograph of hand holding the product on a white background. The boxes are the same shape and size and both feature a similar details about "history of the brand." They both come with a baking utensil inside. They are not identical but a consumer might confuse the two since they are both selling packaged mixes. And that would be a problem for the Caker because they are a much small company with limited distribution. Teigen likely has a much larger reach, and if Teigen's product is sufficiently similar to confuse or "trick" consumers, it could cost the Caker opportunities and real money. This could actually threaten their business.

I think its borderline because the products do appear to different (it's not clear that Teigen's line has any cakes in it, whereas the Caker is exclusively cakes) and have very different price points (the Caker products are very high quality and have speciality ingredients, and a $25 price tag to match). But it's not accurate to say they look "nothing" alike. There is clear overlap, the biggest being the photo presentation.

You think people will be tricked even though the box is red or green and CT is white.

You think stores will shelve the cake lady’s boxes facing backwards?

Lol.

I think you could argue that a consumer familiar with the Caker mixes could pick up Teigen's product and see the extremely similar photo, same shaped box and similar details, and not realize it was a totally different product. And since Teigen's product sells for a lot less, they might think "Oh, this must be a cheaper version of that really good product I've had before -- great." The existence of the collaboration with Teigen on a Caker product could add to this confusion -- a consumer might assume that Teigen had been involved in the Caker products all along, or that Cravings had bought out the Caker, because they'd seen the promotion with the collaboration product. These confusion claims could be made even if the two products were not sold in the same stores. If the target demo is similar enough, you can argue Teigen is trying to capitalize on the brand good will that the Caker has spent years creating.

The thing about trade dress claims is that they hinge on (1) whether the product packaging will create confusion for the consumer, and (2) whether that confusion could result in the original product losing market share. The goal is to prevent people from just making a similar looking product and gaining market share based on the goodwill and strong reputation established by the original product.

The counterargument from Teigen would be that she has an established reputation in this market sector and that her branding for Cravings is recognizable enough not to cause confusion. There would be a weighing of factors to determine if that was true. I think it is to Teigen's benefit that the Cravings log is fairly prominently placed on the product. But I also think it was dumb to include such incredibly similar product photography, and that launching this product after the collaboration with the Caker was either lazy or antagonizing. If they'd never worked together, and if Teigen just changed the product art a little, this wouldn't even be an issue.

How would that happen though as the front of the boxes have nothing in common. One is red / green and the other is white. The consumer looking head on at the product would not see any similarity

People don't just make consumer decisions by looking at products side by side on a shelf. In fact, that's increasingly uncommon due to e-commerce. It's entirely possible that someone familiar with the Caker products would run an internet search for "fancy box mix", find Teigen's product, assume it was the same based on similarities in packaging and concept (again, they'd be looking at a photo that featured that familiar product photo with the white background and a similarly shaped box), and buy it thinking they are buying a product they'd had and liked. In which case Teigen would be benefitting from the Caker's brand.

I'm not saying it's a slam dunk but they are similar enough in both concept and presentation, and especially with the existing collaboration between the two, to make a claim of product confusion and argue Teigen's product is trying to benefit from the Caker's existing product good will. It's not a crazy case.

+1

The Caker person has a decent case. She might not win, but it isn’t outrageous for her to bring suit.