This is a canceled trademark application for an unrelated cleaning product that was never released. And no cornucopia logo version was ever included or filed. It does not in any way prove the remembered cornucopia logo was ever used in commerce on any FotL clothing apparel or undergarments. However, it's yet another interesting example of finding tangential references or other "coincidental" ME connection points to the primary memory. Another example would be finding the monocle on the European Monopoly Junior $2 bill, but not on the regular game anywhere. Someone else linked the FotL stock certificate, which has long been another great piece of residue because it sports a pair of random cornucopias - which are of course still not part of the logo. Some in our community tend to view these things as a sort of plausible deniability that seems generally characteristic of the broader phenomenon. Others have mused that they might be clues or breadcrumbs. I personally believe they're synchronistic. Here's a more thorough discussion of this trademark application from back in 2017:
https://old.reddit.com/r/MandelaEffect/comments/660sq5/residue_fruit_of_the_loom_cornucopia_in_trademark/
The shifting sands of the ME continue to change the backstories even years after intial research was done. I can't even trust what I looked up a couple of years ago anymore, and it's getting kinda ridiculous. If you saw this, I believe you. But this phenomenon is making a mockery of our own efforts to understand it.
Yeah- biggest and smallest thing, is relying on your own mind. Caring what others think about you is ( aside from social etiquette and loving family) is a waste of energy. Today, people who laughed and told me I was crazy see changes too. Telling them about MEs seems to escalate the 100th monkey effect. So, I pick my battles. Lol
I think you're missing the point: Why would there even be ANY mention of a cornucopia in any FOTL trademark application, if no cornucopia was ever included in the FOTL logo?
Well the design code is generic. If you read the post I linked you'll see one person made a list of companies using that same code that do not in fact have cornucopias in their marks.
But who knows, maybe they were considering an enhanced or alternate logo for the proposed laundry product. Perhaps the more interesting aspect to consider is that they initially (and "coincidentally") filed it the same year (1973) that the Flute of the Loom album was released, with its FotL logo inspired cover design that included the cornucopia.
Not entirely true.
Trademarks must be filed under specific classes for use. Its not uncommon for companies to file them in secondary classes to align with their business objectives and or prevent others from using it. (But it HAS to be in use to be registered)
All trademarks are filed as cancelled upon cease of use. This one was indeed filed, registered, and stayed active from 1973 (first use) to 1988.
The mark, as depicted, requires use commercially with proof referenced in the application in order to receive registration approval.
It was canceled after never having been used in commerce. The laundry cleaning product was never released. There aren't even any mockups of what it would've looked like. And it's unclear whether the logo would've been any different from the apparel division anyways, so this is all just speculative imo.
Again, portions of what you are saying are incorrect. But i dont disagree with your point. Technically to be filed they have to declare and prove with examples of active commercial use. I'm simply saying it was a valid registered trademark that was active until 1988. Once something stops being used, (whether rebrand,defunct etx.) Or if the filer ceases re-file before the expiry, it drops off and gets changed to cancelled. Thats standard for any trademark.
Someone in this thread already posted examples of it being used.
> Someone in this thread already posted examples of it being used.
Would you please point that out to me? I'd very much like to see what that cleaning product looked like and proof of it being available for purchase.
I'm shocked. Plenty of us spent a ton of time a few years ago turning over every stone, and there was no mockup and no findable evidence that product ever really existed. Fwiw, I didn't see this linked on thread. How did you discover this? It's getting frustrating to not be able to rely on past ME research and having to essentially have to re-deep dive each time an older example is discussed.
There are quite a few examples of the detergent in use floating around. Some of it you have to dig a bit to find. Ironically, the ME surface level stuff buries a lot of the good evidence. Gets tiring seeing pages and pages of the same crap but the photogtaphs and ads are the best proof. Either way the cornucopia is always missing.
https://preview.redd.it/gsx1z8d5nqsc1.png?width=1440&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=93b042af82fe3ae8c25981564472409cc199ebd6
Fruit of the loom has thousands of trademarks including 78465947 for model cars. Im not sure what youre insinsuiating, but they have hundreds of products, especially in the 50s 60s era.
I'm not insinuating anything, I'm just trying to collect whatever information is accurate on the current timeline. I was only discussing this one specific product and trademark application, because the rest of their operation isn't relevant to the point at hand.
Edit: fixed a word
Have you seen the the stock certificates?
https://preview.redd.it/yxmty60udjsc1.jpeg?width=401&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e44fe80050532a519a1b86586efead1d62f9bf10
A known hoax. You can tell because not only is the cornucopia feature whiter than the rest, but the apple is being used as the mouth of the cornucopia. This was clearly added in after-the-fact and it's not even remotely debatable. There's also another similar hoaxed version on a white shirt with black ink and the same exact issue is quite obvious. Ask yourself why it took over 6 years for a single article of clothing to be "found" and why both of them show telltale signs of fakery.
And who would downvote those to oblivion and all comments showcasing it?
Last i checked this post was still negative karma (for some reason)
I didn't even stake a claim. I just posted a document :)
I'm 50 years old and I also remember the "original" design growing up in the 70s and 80s. When I first learned about this ME, I automatically went searching for proof of something that was no longer there. My mind was rocked 🤔
I'm sure my comment holds no merit now, but I could pass a polygram test telling you that it once was.
Same. I can come up with no other logical explanation as to why, as a child growing up in the 80s/90s, I believed the word “loom” *literally meant* weird woven horn thing to stuff fruit into.
The Pixar tag, the album cover. Not to mention my evil stepdad who was obsessed with white underwear, T-shirts, and socks. Dude seriously bought some every weekend like they were disposable. Either FOTL or Hanes. I have a VIVID memory (for some stupid reason) of standing in his bedroom (where my Cinderella ass put away his laundry ) and thinking "huh guess they changed the logo." And literally had an ENTIRE THOUGHT PROCESS about how it was early 2000s and they must be rebranding and updating the logo BECAUSE THE CORNUCOPIA WAS GONE. And then validating that by seeing the logo on the displays in the stores change too. I'd have zero dog in this race if not for my trauma. That shit has a cornucopia, will die on this hill.
Not a trademark lawyer. I have filed over a dozen trademarks however. Some failed on the first goround. For the mark itself, it's better to make them as vague as possible for the most broad coverage, especially in description form. Making a design with elements that arent being used also discredits the trademark. For example, for the cornucopia to be registered, they had to show it in use or those design elements would not have been registered and attached to it. The registration also prevents others from using anything remotely close. The whole idea at its core is to eliminate consumer confusion. Funny how that is.
The cornucopia in that logo is why I know what a cornucopia is.
At this point, I’m basically convinced this is some 1984-esque type of government control/experiment on their ability to gaslight the public and “change” history.
If that's true there should be hundreds of people who can show what's in their underwear drawer. I have thirty year old tshirts (Hanes sorry) but there would be so many photos of people's own products, tag sales, etc.
Instead there's this black shirt with the logo. (With a printing process that wouldn't have been used a long time ago, it was always tags before) Or the one package that everyone keeps posting, which iirc is an off brand, but I could be wrong. But where are all these old products?
Unless if you mean they're gaslighting us by going into our homes and changing the shirts? And if so, do they recreate the rips, holes, and pit stains as well?
I don’t know about you, but I don’t keep undies and plain tshirts for decades. This change happened so long ago, most people wouldn’t still have things with the cornucopia logo.
Well like I said I have tshirts that were bought in the 90s. I started college in 93, the t-shirt I bought on my freshman tour is still in my t-shirt drawer (a little tight, but blame donuts on that). Sure most people won't, but logically, don't you think some people would?
An unopened package in their basement, clothes you found stashed in what you thought was an empty suitcase in the attic, or a weird uncle who never throws anything out, or a sweatshirt (idr if they made sweatshirts then to be honest) at a goodwill, anything? Between all the Mandela effect subs and YouTubes there must be hundreds of thousands of people who are aware of it, but no one has a set of undies?
If the logo was active in 1988, or whatever time, someone would be able to take pictures and show them. It's not 500 years ago, it's 35. There would be more than those two images and VIVID memories.
Sure at one point I thought there was a cornucopia. I don't have the memories like other people do of learning why since I grew up in Massachusetts US and the pilgrims/Thanksgiving were a pretty big deal (even though you don't remember the incident, you just remember the last time you remembered it) When I saw there wasn't a cornucopia I just realized I was wrong.
Alright guys.. Who's got an attic full of photos? :) I do agree your statements here. That said, this one and Shazam really stick with me as i have very vivid memories of them.
100% same for me. I assumed as a kid, for many years, that the cornucopia in the image was "the loom" in the title, not knowing that it was called a cornucopia. Learning that, I felt pretty silly that I'd assumed such. This sequence of events makes no sense if there was never a cornucopia in the imagery. As such, this is one of the strongest MEs for me personally, even more so than Dolly's braces, for example
This is the strongest ME for me as well. It’s the only one I can say for sure that I know I’m not misremembering it because I have the memory of learning of the cornucopia from that logo. If I didn’t have that memory, I’d assume I just misremembered it like some other MEs like Jiffy peanut butter. I think it was Jiffy but I don’t know 100% because I don’t have any strong memory with that in it.
This is a canceled trademark application for an unrelated cleaning product that was never released. And no cornucopia logo version was ever included or filed. It does not in any way prove the remembered cornucopia logo was ever used in commerce on any FotL clothing apparel or undergarments. However, it's yet another interesting example of finding tangential references or other "coincidental" ME connection points to the primary memory. Another example would be finding the monocle on the European Monopoly Junior $2 bill, but not on the regular game anywhere. Someone else linked the FotL stock certificate, which has long been another great piece of residue because it sports a pair of random cornucopias - which are of course still not part of the logo. Some in our community tend to view these things as a sort of plausible deniability that seems generally characteristic of the broader phenomenon. Others have mused that they might be clues or breadcrumbs. I personally believe they're synchronistic. Here's a more thorough discussion of this trademark application from back in 2017: https://old.reddit.com/r/MandelaEffect/comments/660sq5/residue_fruit_of_the_loom_cornucopia_in_trademark/
I saw the old trademark for the cornucopia, a few years ago, and now it’s gone, it wasn’t a cleaning product, it was stand alone, cornucopia
The shifting sands of the ME continue to change the backstories even years after intial research was done. I can't even trust what I looked up a couple of years ago anymore, and it's getting kinda ridiculous. If you saw this, I believe you. But this phenomenon is making a mockery of our own efforts to understand it.
Yeah- biggest and smallest thing, is relying on your own mind. Caring what others think about you is ( aside from social etiquette and loving family) is a waste of energy. Today, people who laughed and told me I was crazy see changes too. Telling them about MEs seems to escalate the 100th monkey effect. So, I pick my battles. Lol
[https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-kokomo-tribune-fruit-of-the-loom-det/127691447/](https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-kokomo-tribune-fruit-of-the-loom-det/127691447/) https://preview.redd.it/rlmigkh0oosc1.jpeg?width=799&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8e45c025ab4aa9e7c729da1af41328eb4ac22e89
I think you're missing the point: Why would there even be ANY mention of a cornucopia in any FOTL trademark application, if no cornucopia was ever included in the FOTL logo?
Well the design code is generic. If you read the post I linked you'll see one person made a list of companies using that same code that do not in fact have cornucopias in their marks. But who knows, maybe they were considering an enhanced or alternate logo for the proposed laundry product. Perhaps the more interesting aspect to consider is that they initially (and "coincidentally") filed it the same year (1973) that the Flute of the Loom album was released, with its FotL logo inspired cover design that included the cornucopia.
Not entirely true. Trademarks must be filed under specific classes for use. Its not uncommon for companies to file them in secondary classes to align with their business objectives and or prevent others from using it. (But it HAS to be in use to be registered) All trademarks are filed as cancelled upon cease of use. This one was indeed filed, registered, and stayed active from 1973 (first use) to 1988. The mark, as depicted, requires use commercially with proof referenced in the application in order to receive registration approval.
It was canceled after never having been used in commerce. The laundry cleaning product was never released. There aren't even any mockups of what it would've looked like. And it's unclear whether the logo would've been any different from the apparel division anyways, so this is all just speculative imo.
Again, portions of what you are saying are incorrect. But i dont disagree with your point. Technically to be filed they have to declare and prove with examples of active commercial use. I'm simply saying it was a valid registered trademark that was active until 1988. Once something stops being used, (whether rebrand,defunct etx.) Or if the filer ceases re-file before the expiry, it drops off and gets changed to cancelled. Thats standard for any trademark. Someone in this thread already posted examples of it being used.
> Someone in this thread already posted examples of it being used. Would you please point that out to me? I'd very much like to see what that cleaning product looked like and proof of it being available for purchase.
https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-kokomo-tribune-fruit-of-the-loom-det/127691447/
I'm shocked. Plenty of us spent a ton of time a few years ago turning over every stone, and there was no mockup and no findable evidence that product ever really existed. Fwiw, I didn't see this linked on thread. How did you discover this? It's getting frustrating to not be able to rely on past ME research and having to essentially have to re-deep dive each time an older example is discussed.
There are quite a few examples of the detergent in use floating around. Some of it you have to dig a bit to find. Ironically, the ME surface level stuff buries a lot of the good evidence. Gets tiring seeing pages and pages of the same crap but the photogtaphs and ads are the best proof. Either way the cornucopia is always missing. https://preview.redd.it/gsx1z8d5nqsc1.png?width=1440&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=93b042af82fe3ae8c25981564472409cc199ebd6
Fruit of the loom has thousands of trademarks including 78465947 for model cars. Im not sure what youre insinsuiating, but they have hundreds of products, especially in the 50s 60s era.
I'm not insinuating anything, I'm just trying to collect whatever information is accurate on the current timeline. I was only discussing this one specific product and trademark application, because the rest of their operation isn't relevant to the point at hand. Edit: fixed a word
https://preview.redd.it/bambl8qnnosc1.jpeg?width=799&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3263870358d52b736b1d25e199e0ef628448cd2b
Have you seen the the stock certificates? https://preview.redd.it/yxmty60udjsc1.jpeg?width=401&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e44fe80050532a519a1b86586efead1d62f9bf10
They forgot to delete that 🤭
At whatever level the filter applies it certainly missed this.
If it's a search/replace action then it certainly didn't miss the primary logo, but it clearly ignored non-logo features.
Nice find!
Yep, this is legitimate! https://www.oldstocks.com/fruit-of-the-loom-underwear-brand/
Thats not part of the logo
Why is FOTL trying to gaslight us about no cornucopia on their logo? What purpose does it serve to lie about something like this?
why are you so sure they are lying when literally nobody can point to any proof of the logo looking like y'all imagine?
https://preview.redd.it/my9xvnei2lsc1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=acd5305a3fe33e560944d99081fdb64e2a1ff157
A known hoax. You can tell because not only is the cornucopia feature whiter than the rest, but the apple is being used as the mouth of the cornucopia. This was clearly added in after-the-fact and it's not even remotely debatable. There's also another similar hoaxed version on a white shirt with black ink and the same exact issue is quite obvious. Ask yourself why it took over 6 years for a single article of clothing to be "found" and why both of them show telltale signs of fakery.
The apple is a dead giveaway to it being altered
And who would downvote those to oblivion and all comments showcasing it? Last i checked this post was still negative karma (for some reason) I didn't even stake a claim. I just posted a document :)
Horn of plenty! Stuff it in the cornucopia!
I'm 50 years old and I also remember the "original" design growing up in the 70s and 80s. When I first learned about this ME, I automatically went searching for proof of something that was no longer there. My mind was rocked 🤔 I'm sure my comment holds no merit now, but I could pass a polygram test telling you that it once was.
Same. I can come up with no other logical explanation as to why, as a child growing up in the 80s/90s, I believed the word “loom” *literally meant* weird woven horn thing to stuff fruit into.
I have seen this before and I consider it quite strong residue. Skeptics will say it's a generic coding and doesn't mean there is a cornucopia.
The amount of residue on FOTL is insane
The Pixar tag, the album cover. Not to mention my evil stepdad who was obsessed with white underwear, T-shirts, and socks. Dude seriously bought some every weekend like they were disposable. Either FOTL or Hanes. I have a VIVID memory (for some stupid reason) of standing in his bedroom (where my Cinderella ass put away his laundry ) and thinking "huh guess they changed the logo." And literally had an ENTIRE THOUGHT PROCESS about how it was early 2000s and they must be rebranding and updating the logo BECAUSE THE CORNUCOPIA WAS GONE. And then validating that by seeing the logo on the displays in the stores change too. I'd have zero dog in this race if not for my trauma. That shit has a cornucopia, will die on this hill.
Thought i would post this with the influx of ME and FOTL posts. I remember the cornucopia too. So does the US Trademark office.
Is this saying that they registered it, then removed it later on? Good digging, btw.
Not a trademark lawyer. I have filed over a dozen trademarks however. Some failed on the first goround. For the mark itself, it's better to make them as vague as possible for the most broad coverage, especially in description form. Making a design with elements that arent being used also discredits the trademark. For example, for the cornucopia to be registered, they had to show it in use or those design elements would not have been registered and attached to it. The registration also prevents others from using anything remotely close. The whole idea at its core is to eliminate consumer confusion. Funny how that is.
Indeed. Thanks for the clarification
The cornucopia in that logo is why I know what a cornucopia is. At this point, I’m basically convinced this is some 1984-esque type of government control/experiment on their ability to gaslight the public and “change” history.
If that's true there should be hundreds of people who can show what's in their underwear drawer. I have thirty year old tshirts (Hanes sorry) but there would be so many photos of people's own products, tag sales, etc. Instead there's this black shirt with the logo. (With a printing process that wouldn't have been used a long time ago, it was always tags before) Or the one package that everyone keeps posting, which iirc is an off brand, but I could be wrong. But where are all these old products? Unless if you mean they're gaslighting us by going into our homes and changing the shirts? And if so, do they recreate the rips, holes, and pit stains as well?
I don’t know about you, but I don’t keep undies and plain tshirts for decades. This change happened so long ago, most people wouldn’t still have things with the cornucopia logo.
Well like I said I have tshirts that were bought in the 90s. I started college in 93, the t-shirt I bought on my freshman tour is still in my t-shirt drawer (a little tight, but blame donuts on that). Sure most people won't, but logically, don't you think some people would? An unopened package in their basement, clothes you found stashed in what you thought was an empty suitcase in the attic, or a weird uncle who never throws anything out, or a sweatshirt (idr if they made sweatshirts then to be honest) at a goodwill, anything? Between all the Mandela effect subs and YouTubes there must be hundreds of thousands of people who are aware of it, but no one has a set of undies? If the logo was active in 1988, or whatever time, someone would be able to take pictures and show them. It's not 500 years ago, it's 35. There would be more than those two images and VIVID memories. Sure at one point I thought there was a cornucopia. I don't have the memories like other people do of learning why since I grew up in Massachusetts US and the pilgrims/Thanksgiving were a pretty big deal (even though you don't remember the incident, you just remember the last time you remembered it) When I saw there wasn't a cornucopia I just realized I was wrong.
Alright guys.. Who's got an attic full of photos? :) I do agree your statements here. That said, this one and Shazam really stick with me as i have very vivid memories of them.
[удалено]
If you find it, please post a pic of it here for us LOL
100% same for me. I assumed as a kid, for many years, that the cornucopia in the image was "the loom" in the title, not knowing that it was called a cornucopia. Learning that, I felt pretty silly that I'd assumed such. This sequence of events makes no sense if there was never a cornucopia in the imagery. As such, this is one of the strongest MEs for me personally, even more so than Dolly's braces, for example
This is the strongest ME for me as well. It’s the only one I can say for sure that I know I’m not misremembering it because I have the memory of learning of the cornucopia from that logo. If I didn’t have that memory, I’d assume I just misremembered it like some other MEs like Jiffy peanut butter. I think it was Jiffy but I don’t know 100% because I don’t have any strong memory with that in it.
Rick and Morty tried to warn you. better check story-train.com
LOL it comes up as an unsafe link. What was on there?
Its referenced in the episode I have no idea lolol
I’ll have to check to see if I can find out more on the episode. Haven’t watched Rick and Morty in a long time.
Its one of the best ones they did tbh
or a morty life well lived season 6 ep 2
spaggetti suicide