Ben & Jerry’s Wins In Court Against “Ben & Cherry’s XXX” Porno

by Bucky Beall on September 7, 2012

Post image for Ben & Jerry’s Wins In Court Against “Ben & Cherry’s XXX” Porno

Hippy makers of delicious ice cream Ben & Jerry’s are known for their humor, many of their fine flavors have a jokey or punny title, hell they even named one of their flavors Schweddy Balls (vanilla ice cream with a hint of rum  with fudge covered rum and malt balls – it’s delicious, I could eat Schweddy Balls all day long) but they are not amused with a line of porno movies released under the name “Ben & Cherry’s”.

Here’s Ben & Jerry’s product Peanut Butter Cup:

For comparison here’s the Ben & Cherry’s product, a dvd of porn titled Peanut Butter D-Cup:

Where B&J have Cherry Garcia, B&C have Hairy Garcia. Where B&J have Boston Cream Pie, B&C have Boston Cream Thighs and so on and so forth.

Ben and Jerry’s hauled their porno counterparts into court claiming that the fuck flicks are hurting the ice cream’s brand by associating them with pornography. Personally I think this is protected under the rights we all have to make parodies and of general free speech, but today a federal judge is disagreeing with my expert opinion and is blocking the further sale or production of the Ben & Cherry’s XXX series .

What’s your legal opinion? Was the judge in the right to shut them down? Or is this a harmless parody? Are people really going to mix up frozen desserts with hardcore dvds? Give us your ruling in the court of our comments section down below.

Via LaTimes.com

  • http://twitter.com/AlphaHarlot Alpha Harlot

    I feel like the font and the logo are a bit too close to the real thing…the parody names themselves are fairly imaginative (except for peanut butter D cups, that makes me think of food porn with peanut butter…and there’s nothing sexy about slathering up your lover in nut butter…unless it’s jizz in which case it’s super sexy) so I think that the courts would have possibly decided differently if the logos weren’t nearly an EXACT match.

    • BDY

      I agree with Alpha on this issue. I’d like to say it’s protected but the likeness is much to close for copyright issues. I had a friend whose band got a cease and desist order from Subway because they used the same font/coloring/logo for their band shirts with a completely different name. They didn’t care all that much but instead of trying to fight it they relented and changed their logo.

      • BuckyBeall

        I just wish these movies had hot girls eating ice cream….they don’t

  • http://twitter.com/rebeccabardoux Rebecca Bardoux

    I don’t think these movies are parodies, are they? Look more like compilations. So, with that the logo does look to much like the ice cream brand. So, that is copyright infringement. Another spot light on the industry we don’t need. Feel bad for the guys making real parodies in this biz. Somebody always has to ruin it for the rest of us. What a waste of time and money for the distributor of this stuff. They used to be a low key company, not anymore.

  • Dragon

    No such thing as copyright infringement if they re named everything and turned it into a parody, cause if it is then the Pokemon opening by Amish is a copyright infringement, so is scary movi

  • Dragon

    *Smosh, scary movie series. Ect

Previous post:

Next post: