Re: [CH] Tobasco
jim@wildpepper.com
Tue, 03 Jun 2008 19:46:04 -0400
Re: If tobasco was already the name of a Chile why does
McIlhenny's own the rights to the name ??
Because they claimed, and a trademark clerk agreed with them over 150
years ago, that they were the first to combine THAT specific chile,
grown by them, into THAT specific sauce. It went from there. It is
important to remember the era in which it was first granted. We're
talking American Civil War here, where a trip to California was months
in the doing and engendered no small amount of risk! Mail took weeks to
get there (okay- so that's not changed much ;-) and communications were
quite a bit slower. We didn't have NAFTA to promote international trade
and the internet in order to near instantly research something. I will
not dispute in the slightest the merits of the original trademark being
issued. Fact of the matter stands though, it was issued- right or
wrong.
Re: the red Savina Habanero patent
It isn't a patent, it is a trademark. Last I knew, they didn't have to
drop *anything*. Matter of fact, they were told to 'tighten it up' so
that the mark and proper name stands as "Red Savina Habanero(TM)".
Sorry =Mark, I'm typing fast :-)
The granting of that conveys no special claim to the name habanero
independant of the name "Red Savina" and is usually stated as such in
the granting of the trademark. When I was awarded mine, it specifically
states that the mark applies to the name "Mild to Wild Pepper &
Herb(R)" "in its' entirety and no specific claim can be made upon
'pepper & herb' apart from 'Mild to Wild'".
So sorry Rael- your Bannana(R), Raspberry(R), Orange(R) smoothie
wouldn't work :-) **However** a BanRaspOran would as it is distinct.
-Jim
http://www.StepUpforCharity.org
quitting the fire service tomorrow to take up trademark consulting :-P