re: We can't call an Edible Image, well, an edible image?

I’m so sorry Shawndra, I’m not surprised they trademarked the term though since it’s a description of the goods they are selling. I can give you a little insight into trademarks though. If a company has a trademark and doesn’t go after people to protect it, they can risk losing the trademark, which is about $1500 in application and attorney fees. If they allow other people to use the trademarked term for similar items, it “dilutes” the brand which can then no longer be protected under their trademark in federal court. It’s the same reason big companies like Disney go after small bakers for infringement – if they don’t – they lose their protection against even bigger companies which could come in and produce knock-offs with the power of the Disney brand name. I don’t understand why amazon won’t let you re-word the description though. Sounds like they are skiddish about any type of infringement, which then would put them at risk for a lawsuit. I know it seems so silly to be able to trademark a common term, but if it is descriptive to a certain brand, they can trademark it along with the name of their company and logo – like the Nike “swoosh”. They probably trademarked the term the same time they produced and trademarked their product, so it actually is “theirs” in terms of using it to describe a product. Trademarks are retro-active to the date of filing, so if it was just approved by the USPTO, that may be why they are just now enforcing the use of it. I hope you can resolve it with amazon to continue selling your items!