I’ve neglected to mention above that I’m applying for various grants and whatnot to fulfill my goals, not expecting to crowd-source the entire project.

Most significantly, I would never, ever, offer this as a platform for other smoothie makers to “make their marks” and “brand themselves the cool guys.” Someone could certainly do that, but that’s a plan for some marketing schlub to come up with, not me. (You’re probably right, it would *freaking fly*.) The point is, this shouldn’t be a debate about who’s cooler. Pepsi won that one when they didn’t sue Negativland over Dispepsi. But in the end, who does that benefit? It’s just a better way of marketing. It’s basically a market-oriented solution, and the market here is the problem.

Basically, Mr. Fricative, read my book and get back to me. We can discuss more then.

And, jhn4, “substantial similarity” was, as I understand it, a primary consideration in the Jeff Koons and other copyright cases (a piece over a New Yorker cover comes to mind, although not the name of it.) Although you’re right, those should more accurately be considered intellectual property rights issues. I do use “copyright” as a general term to stand for “IP issues” because people seem to confuse them, and I probably shouldn’t do that.

That all has to do with trademark, which is often lumped in with “intellectual property” broadly. But trademarks aren’t property like copyright or patents, in fact, they can’t even legally be sold without the underlying business/goodwill/affiliation they identify.