Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: The Snuggies Sabotage Conspiracy?

  1. #1

    Default The Snuggies Sabotage Conspiracy?

    Just thought of yet another silly little conspiracy: what if the reason Huggies ever found out about Snuggies was that a rival abdl company had tipped them off?
    Discuss.

  2. #2

  3. #3

    Default

    I never heard the entire story about that. Was Snuggies sued by Huggies?

  4. #4

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by INTrePid View Post
    I never heard the entire story about that. Was Snuggies sued by Huggies?
    While I don't think we heard any official word from anyone, that's a very popular assumption. The most likely scenario was a swarm of lawyers descended on Snuggies and threatened to sue them into next Tuesday for using a similar name to their trademark, on a similar product. Got a legal paper thrown in front of them to sign off that they were going to immediately stop using "snuggies" anywhere and probably got gagged with some form of NDA so they couldn't talk about the bullying they just received, in exchange for not being bankrupted by lawyer fees. So we haven't really heard much of anything from Tykables other than they changed their name. They were apparently allowed to sell off their remaining product, and kept the snuggies.com domain name (at least for awhile) to redirect their customers.

    That's just how it is in America, if you're big, it doesn't matter if you're right or wrong. You can kill (or just plain threaten to kill) a small business with having to defend against neverending expensive lawsuits.

  5. #5

    Default

    I HIGHLY doubt that another ABDL company tipped off Kimberly-Clark about Snuggies. I'm pretty sure they just found out through Google. While I'm sure there's friendly competition between the big ABDL companies, I don't see any of them going to lengths like that.

  6. #6

    Default

    We know Snuggies weren't sued by Huggies because there's been no public court filing (we'd be able to see it and somebody by now would have found and posted it). They likely received a simple threat letter and decided that making a change was the best way to avoid any problems.

  7. #7

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by ArchieRoni View Post
    We know Snuggies weren't sued by Huggies because there's been no public court filing (we'd be able to see it and somebody by now would have found and posted it). They likely received a simple threat letter and decided that making a change was the best way to avoid any problems.
    This was sort of explained on Reddit months ago, but Kimberly-Clark challenged the old name (.pdf link) and some sort of settlement was worked out that allowed Tykables to sell their remaining stock while rebranding. They also apparently were running into trademark issues as they tried to sell in other countries given different standards. We're extremely unlikely to ever learn the exact details given whatever wall of lawyers and/or NDAs is involved.

    In fairness, "Snuggies" was two letters off of "Huggies", and with 20/20 hindsight it makes all the sense in the world that a company selling baby diapers to a mainstream audience had a problem with that.

  8. #8

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Fruitkitty View Post
    [...] with 20/20 hindsight it makes all the sense in the world that a company selling baby diapers to a mainstream audience had a problem with that.
    I disagree.
    First of all, Snuggies was such a small niche company compared to the Huggies conglomerate that it's not that plausible that Huggies would have found out by themselves.

    Secondly, in the United States there is a law called the "parody law", just Google "stupid Starbucks".

  9. #9

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by some1 View Post
    I disagree.
    First of all, Snuggies was such a small niche company compared to the Huggies conglomerate that it's not that plausible that Huggies would have found out by themselves.

    Secondly, in the United States there is a law called the "parody law", just Google "stupid Starbucks".
    It's entirely plausible. I think you underestimate how wide the focus of market intelligence agencies and market trend analysts is. The market for ABDL nappies may be small, but it is growing, and I assure you, someone will have taken note. Most likely, it came to the attention of someone at Depends, since they are in the adult nappy business after all - maybe a market report, maybe a trade publication, maybe going to a convention, or maybe they have contacts within the ABDL community - and they passed the information onto Huggies, since they both have the same parent company, Kimberly Clark.

    Anyway, to maintain control of your trademark, you have to defend it. For valuable trademarks, that sometimes means being heavy-handed. The courts aren't always predictable, even for companies with deep pockets, so obviously a company is going to err on the side of an aggressive defence. That's just business, unfortunately. Huggies could probably have done far more damage to Snuggies than they actually did.
    Last edited by Akastus; 26-Feb-2016 at 14:20.

  10. #10

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by some1 View Post
    I disagree.
    First of all, Snuggies was such a small niche company compared to the Huggies conglomerate that it's not that plausible that Huggies would have found out by themselves.

    Secondly, in the United States there is a law called the "parody law", just Google "stupid Starbucks".
    Here's the rub: even if a company doesn't mind you using a similar brand, their lawyers will still recommend being aggresive about it. No they're not trying to be dicks, they're doing it for a very good reason. In the USA anyway, a trademark or brand can be protected, but that protection requires you to defend it. What that means is that if you ignore someone using a brand similar to yours, and then someone else comes along and tries to do the same, in court they will try to compare their brand against the other brand you ignored, saying that if theirs was ok, ours should be ok too. It sounds a bit petty, but it's ended up being a usable defense in court often enough that nowadays lawyers will urge brand owners to aggressively defend their marks. The general rule is that if you have someone possibly infringing on your mark and you're OK with it, you NEED to get the lawyers involved anyway, and draw up lenient (or close to free) licensing for them. Otherwise you fail to defend your mark and can make defending it later more difficult.

    Thanks for the PDF link, FruitKitty. "ikelihood of confusion" and "dilution" are the stated grounds, as expected. On paper they're saying that (A) there is a risk of customers confusing your product for theirs because the trademarked objects (symbol, brand, name, etc) are similar enough and the products are in the same or closely related markets. Or (B) the presence of a similar mark may lower brand recognition - when someone hears "huggies" they want the consumer to only associate that with their product, and not have others on their mind as possible matches. That's dillusion because it "dillutes the potency of their mark". Either one of these is damaging to marketing of a product.

    So they have a good reason to do what they did, and it's legally justified. So there's no reason to get upset with them over it. Snuggies being a niche market doesn't matter because the niche is very close to the market the trademark owner is in. Note that "snuggies" is not uniquely owned by KC. Think of those TV blankets with the armholes in the front, those are Snuggies too. But they're not diapers, so KC doesn't mind. They might have minded if Snuggies were disposable and marked as something absorbent that could stop your spilled drink from getting on your couch, because then you're getting closer to their market of absorbent, disposable products. (I'd have to look, but it's actually possible they did a lilttle lawyer jousting with them, just to show they are "defending their mark", even if they knew it wouldn't accomplish anything, a lot of branding is posturing)

Similar Threads

  1. Snuggies / Snuggies Overnights in Canada
    By Rescue in forum Diaper Talk
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 26-Sep-2015, 12:42
  2. Snuggies / Snuggies Overnights in Canada
    By Rescue in forum Diaper Talk
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-Jun-2015, 10:54
  3. The Elvis constipation conspiracy
    By Musician147 in forum Off-topic
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-Feb-2013, 23:09
  4. Moon Landing conspiracy theories
    By Target in forum Off-topic
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 05-Dec-2008, 01:28
  5. UnMarth and the conspiracy of the number 17
    By whip in forum Greetings / Introductions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-Feb-2008, 20:30

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.