Re: [CH] Re: Evil corporate types

Linda Hutchinson (lipant@sympatico.ca)
Tue, 3 Jun 2008 19:11:30 -0400 

If we all had to use only words that had no loyalty terms, we would have to 
re-write the English language.  (oops that's only for Englanders.)  I am 
drinking Coke now (to me) but in reality it is Pepsi's non-caffeine non-diet 
cola....since COKE decided to remove their offering from the Canadian 
market!
We wouldn't be able to have a Bell line unless it's with Bell.  We can't say 
"Sprint over to the market" LOL.   Heinz has tried for years to be a word 
that is synonymous and unique for ketchup, pickles, etc.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Rael64
To: chile-heads@globalgarden.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 6:46 PM
Subject: Re: [CH] Re: Evil corporate types


Ah, but is more along the sense of 'truth in advertising,' as I mentioned 
(Coke), meaning that if a hot sauce calls itself a 'tabasco hot sauce' it 
should have tabascos in it.  Of course, any other poor slob using tabasco 
chiles in a hot sauce cannot, I gather, use the term 'tabasco'.  This 
essentially sets up a sort of monopoly (wrong word; exclusive use? something 
like that) regarding the use of the chile, in a sense, which I'm sure the 
Tabasco (FU) folks are happy about.  I'm sure tabasco chiles are used in 
various hot sauce, salsa, etc. concoctions, but the point is that 'tabasco' 
cannot be used in the name.

Dislike of the tabasco brand hot sauce aside, my point is only that the 
granting of this trademark was a bad call.  It gives someone an unfair 
advantage over a commodity: tabasco chiles.


Peace, Hendrix, and Chiles.......
Rael64


--- On Tue, 6/3/08, jim@wildpepper.com <jim@wildpepper.com> wrote:

> From: jim@wildpepper.com <jim@wildpepper.com>
> Subject: [CH] Re: Evil corporate types
> To: "Rael64" <z42dkm@yahoo.com>
> Cc: chile-heads@globalgarden.com
> Date: Tuesday, June 3, 2008, 4:39 PM
> RE:  But for me, what's always been bothersome is that
> the tabasco chile
> is owner, as it were, of the name "tabasco",
>
> Well- this isn't uncommon though in food, and there are
> a myriad of
> other examples, some closer to the 'mark' (!) and
> others not.  Hmmm....
> nearly all of them I can think of come from the wine world.
>  I suppose I
> ought to get my head out of the bottle a bit more :-)
>
> "Champagne" can only be applied to that sparkling
> wine made in that
> region of France, no matter where I grow the champagne
> grapes.
>
> Make a wine with the Sangiovese grape and you have an
> outstanding full
> bodied red wine.  Make it in a certain region of Italy and
> it will be
> called "Chianti".
>
> "Bordeaux" might be a closer example.  You can
> grow those grapes
> anywhere, but if you do, don't try calling it by that
> name :-)
>
> Although I can't think of them at the moment, I belive
> there are also
> examples in the cheese world as well as other segments of
> the food
> industry.  The drive to take a regional product out into
> the world,
> market it, and protect it based on some sense of it's
> supposed
> uniqueness, is not limited to Tabasco and they are hardly
> the first.
> I'm not defending them as to the particulars of any
> given case, only
> pointing out that they are simply playing by the
> established rules of
> the game.  I know firsthand that they've had to
> withdraw a marketing
> campaign because it was pointed out to them that they were
> stepping on
> someone else's mark.  As this was/is a guy who
> hasn't sold as much sauce
> in a lifetime as Tabasco has in a day, the Trademark law
> served him
> well.  It works both ways.  It's a bit hypocritical to
> celebrate the law
> working for the little guy, but NOT when it works for the
> 'big guy'.
> That's why Justice wears a blindfold ;-)
>
> Again- the law REQUIRES us as business owners to protect
> the mark to the
> fullest extent of our abilities or we lose it.  Some just
> have more
> resources and abilities than others ;-)
>
> -Jim
> http://www.StepUpforCharity.org