Re: [CH] Re: Evil corporate types
Tina Brooks (shoestring_louise@yahoo.com)
Tue, 3 Jun 2008 19:52:07 -0700 (PDT)
Actually, I believe that there is no "trademark" protection granted over the use of the word tabasco chillies in the ingredients' list, it is a type of chili and certainly acceptable. One would have to actually look up EXACTLY what McIlhenny owns the trademark on, only THAT is protected... anything else is tempting... of course one would have to deal with the legal eagles that McIlhenny might set on them, but you know, all's fair in trademark infringement... at least until the gavel comes down anyway.
Personally, I don't think it's a trademark I'd want to challenge unless I was sure I had legal legs to stand on. Owning 30% of the US and Canadian hot sauce market, I'd think their pockets are waaaaay deeper than mine.
=====
Tina Brooks
VP Marketing, Peppermaster Hot Sauces <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.peppermaster.com">www.peppermaster.com
</a>Brooks Pepperfire Foods Inc. <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.pepperfire.ca">www.pepperfire.ca</a>
Phone: (514) 393-3430
26 St. Jean Baptiste, East
Rigaud, Quebec, Canada
J0P 1P0
Network with me on <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.gourmetbusinessforum.com/">www.gourmetbusinessforum.com</a> -- The premier online business community for food professionals
<em><font color="#ff0000">Many persons have a wrong idea of what constitutes true happiness. It is not attained through self-gratification but through fidelity to a worthy purpose.</font> <font color="#4040ff">Helen Keller</font></em>
----- Original Message ----
From: Rael64 <z42dkm@yahoo.com>
To: chile-heads@globalgarden.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2008 6:46:07 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