Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The Colonel Surrenders
The annals of ridiculous intellectual property lawsuits are a little thinner today.
An American fast food giant has backed down in a row with a North Yorkshire country inn amid claims the pub is using one of its trademark phrases.
The Tan Hill Inn, the highest pub in England, had been told by Kentucky Fried Chicken to remove the words "family feast" from its menu.
KFC's lawyers said the company owned the copyright to the wording.
But hours later the American firm's lawyers decided not to pursue the issue of the pub's meal description.
Something to consider if you're ever tempted to describe your last repast as finger-lickin'.
|5.10.07 @ 2:42PM|#
"It's an unusual situation that has been blown out of all
proportion."
It's a junior lawyer confused because IP lawyers routinely issue
the most asinine demands claiming to own everything regardless of
whether the law supports them. Way too many IP lawyers are
engineers with no social awareness or common sense. It's math to
them.
|5.10.07 @ 2:48PM|#
I think the Tan Hill Inn should probably change anyway as to avoid any association with the vile greasepit known as KFC.
|5.10.07 @ 2:53PM|#
Copyright in a slogan? I hope they meant trademark, or
they may need a new line of work. Slogans and mottoes rarely
receive copyright protection. Think about it, if they had a
copyright, then they could argue that any similar phrase is a
"derivative work". Like "clan gorging". The whole idea-expression
dichotomy gets twisted up into knots if you protect short phrases
(there are exceptions, of course, like with everything else in the
law).
Dan T.,
What do you have against grease, anyway?
|5.10.07 @ 2:54PM|#
Dan T.,
What do you have against grease, anyway?
Frankly, I'm a former addict of the stuff.
|5.10.07 @ 2:54PM|#
I haven't forgotten you, Colonel Sanders. You shall soon taste my wrath. (Which tastes even better with a little seasoning)
|5.10.07 @ 2:55PM|#
Auntie Beeb seems a bit confused about this. KFC wasn't
complaining about copyright. That would be ridiculous. "Family
feast" is a common English phrase in the public domain. I'd hate to
think how many times it occurs in Dickens's work, for example. The
Colonel's solicitors were making a trademark claim, as
The Times reported.
A spokesman for the company said: " 'Family Feast' is a registered trademark of Kentucky Fried Chicken (Great Britain) Limited. KFC devotes significant resources to promoting and protecting its trademarks."
That the UK's trademark office allowed such a common term to be
registered seems odd to me. The Colonel's Family Feast?
Sure. Family Feast using a unique typeface or logo? OK.
But claiming sole use of those two words for restaurant meals was
ludicrous.
Kevin
|5.10.07 @ 2:57PM|#
Family feast...
What a pithy, sublime alliteration. It works on so many levels. No
two people could have come up with this genius prose
independently.
|5.10.07 @ 2:57PM|#
Lamar,
Speaking as an engineer, I can tell you that there is no overlap
between the laws of man and the laws of nature. Please do not
offend my profession like that.
|5.10.07 @ 2:58PM|#
Dan T.,
Ah, fair enough. I lusted for sausage gravy and biscuits in my
heart this morning. Not that I'm an addict--I can take it or leave
it.
I wonder if "Uncle Moe's Family Feedbag" would be infringing?
highnumber|5.10.07 @ 3:00PM|#
KFC is a vile greasepit.
Dan T. is right on the money twice in one day. Urkobold might not
be pleased.
|5.10.07 @ 3:01PM|#
three words, and I still can't type correctly . . .
What kevrob said . .
KFC trademark claims are only slightly less stupid than the actions
of whichever authority allowed them to trademark a common
phrase.
|5.10.07 @ 3:02PM|#
Warren, I wish engineering paid more so that y'all stopped going to law school and mucking up the law!!
Dave W.|5.10.07 @ 3:05PM|#
Copyright in a slogan? I hope they meant trademark, or they
may need a new line of work. Slogans and mottoes rarely receive
copyright protection.
The BBC article says both "trademark" and "copyright." Sloppy
journalism by the BBC, and Weigel should really take care to quote
a better article, too. I don't think you should have to be an
intellectual property lawyer to know the difference between
copyrights and trademarks. It is almost seems like willful
ignorance to me sometimes when journalists don't accurately
distinguish patents, copyrights and trademarks.
Also, don't forget to check out my patent blog (at the sig
link).
Dave W.|5.10.07 @ 3:08PM|#
oh, yeah, I also wrote about this kind of case this morning at
another board. here is the cross-post:
I used to write these kind of letters when I did trademark
litigation. Here is how it works, at least in the US:
1. Chain Restaurants Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum are competitors
and have lots of money.
2. Chain Restaurant Tweedle-Dee gets some dumb trademark like
"Family Feast" (I don't think that all trademarks are dumb, but it
is the dumb ones that cause most of the problems).
3. Having no ideas of its own, Competitor Chain Tweedle-Dum then
decides to do an advertising blitz using the phrase "Family Food
Feast."
4. Of course, at this point Tweedle-Dee sues Tweedle-Dum for
trademark infringement (and dilution and unfair competition and
copyright infringement and trade libel and a whole host of other
causes).
5. Instead of just changing its ripped-off slogan, Tweedle-Dum
decides to fight the lawsuit. Their lawyers advise them that one
way to defend is if some other restaurant was using "Family Feast"
before Tweedle-Dee's trademark application. Their lawyers further
advise them that another way to defend is if Tweedle-Dee has not
been enforcing its trademark against other restaurants, no matter
how small or non-competitive, who used the slogan after Tweedle-Dee
filed its trademark application.
6. After reflecting on these defenses, Tweedle-Dum instructs its
lawyers to find every restaurant that used or uses the "Family
Feast" slogan either before or after Tweedle-Dee filed its
trademark application. All these restaurants can help Tweedle-Dum
establish its legal defenses per point 5. The more of them there
are, the better defenses Tweedle-Dum will have.
7. So, Tweedle-Dum's lawyers search low and high for other
restaurants using the slogan. They search higher than the crows fly
because they are paid by the tenth of an hour for the search. They
find quite a few restaurants using the slogan because people,
especially restauranteurs, are pathetically uncreative with their
slogans and they are tend to converge on a few dumb phrases and
names.
8. Tweedle-Dum's lawyers then take the list of "infringing"
restaurants and writes up a legal brief, defending against
Tweedle-Dee's legal claims.
9. Once Tweedle-Dee gets a copy of the brief they immediately have
their lawyers send threatening letters to everybody on the list, no
matter how small. Tweedle-Dee hopes that all the restaurants on the
list started using the phrase "Family Feast" after their trademark
application was filed, but often there is no way of knowing for
sure. As you may have figured out, the reason Tweedle-Dee has its
lawyers do this is so that they can come back to court and show the
court that they are enforcing their trademark promptly upon finding
out about each and every infringement, no matter how small or
inconsequential. Tweedle-Dee hopes that this will impress the court
to the extent that the court will not think Tweedle-Dee has been
"sleeping on its trademark rights" and sending out the signal to
the world that its trademark is abandoned by the disuse of
non-enforcement.
10. The smaller restaurants on the list, like the "Tan Hill Inn" in
this story then receive the threatening letters. Sadly, it often
means that they have to change their slogan, and maybe even buy a
new banner from the local print shop. Happily, the small restaurant
can often take the story to the local media and get a little "news"
story printed up, which news story casts the small restaurant in a
sympathetic light.
11. After the news story, the small restaurant notices a burst of
increased business, which, in turn, increases profit. Maybe not
much, but usually enough to offset the cost of thinking of a new
slogan and purchasing a new banner from the local printshop.
(banners are not that expensive, and thinking of dumb new slogans
even less so)
12. Meanwhile, back at the Tweedle-Dee versus Tweedle-Dum trademark
lawsuit, the judge's clerk gets around to reading all the briefs.
Chances are, the clerk thinks the stuff about the small restaurants
"infringing" is silly because those restaurants are economically
inconsequential compared to the Tweedle-Dee chain and the
Tweedle-Dum chain. So, all that work and all those arguments are
ignored, and the case is decided on more sensible grounds --
usually by amicable settlement between Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum.
These settlements tend to happen once the first couple rounds of
legal bills come in to the accounting departments of the respective
chains.
My comment: yes, it is quite surreal, SnoweyUK.
wsdave|5.10.07 @ 3:23PM|#
Dave W.
Thanks! Now I understand why Starbucks fights so hard against
everyone who screws with them: They could literally lose the right
to their own trademark, in all practicality.
|5.10.07 @ 3:25PM|#
For more TM sillyness, believe it or not, Three-peat is
trademarked
Three-peat
Also
|5.10.07 @ 3:28PM|#
The requirement to defend marks to avoid abandonment claims can force relatively nice companies into asinine positions. And, of course, overreaching being the vogue thing these days, that just makes this whole area of the law all the more painful. So companies end up sending cease and desist letters to kids painting murals.
Urkobold®|5.10.07 @ 3:31PM|#
Urkobold recommends registering your trademark.
Urkobold took the idea from Taktix® when it became clear that
others would attempt to use Urkobold's terrifying name.
Especially be careful around Physicists. They will try to steal
everything from you, then claim it was entropy.
|5.10.07 @ 3:32PM|#
I heard about "three-peat". That should've never been granted,
and I'm highly dubious that Riley could enforce it.
He must be a Physicist or something.
|5.10.07 @ 3:33PM|#
Hanna-Babera once set a highly-threatening letter to a daycare facility because the facility had painted Hanna-Babera's trademarked characters on their walls. When pressed by the media, Hanna-Babera responded that the legal system enforced a use-it or lose-it paradigm on trademark holders.
Dave W.|5.10.07 @ 3:34PM|#
Thanks! Now I understand why Starbucks fights so hard
against everyone who screws with them: They could literally lose
the right to their own trademark, in all practicality.
Then again, sometimes the importance of the defense of trademark
abandonment is overblown by attorneys looking to make a buck.
*rolls eyes toward the Heavens, whistles a tuneless tune*
|5.10.07 @ 3:34PM|#
For more TM sillyness, believe it or not, Three-peat is
trademarked
I haven't checked the link yet, but I was under the impression that
Pat Riley owned "Three-peat", no??
|5.10.07 @ 3:38PM|#
Dave W.: I didn't see the "generic" defense, i.e., "family feast" is generic for a restaurant promotion where families get together and feast.
|5.10.07 @ 3:39PM|#
The best piece of trademark insanity I know of was when
McDonald's went after a family restaurant of that name in
Scotland.
Didna play weel in Glasgow and Edinburgh.
|5.10.07 @ 3:42PM|#
The best piece of trademark insanity I know of was when
McDonald's went after a family restaurant of that name in
Scotland.
MacD's backed off when the rightful heir to the Mac Donald's clan
name threaten to sue Mac D for violating his state-sanctioned
control over the name in Scottland.
|5.10.07 @ 3:43PM|#
Lamar,
You're telling me that engineers are becoming lawyers in
significant numbers? I had no idea. It's not for the money though.
Every engineer I know got paid more on their first job (with
significantly less student loan debt) than the few lawyers I know.
And they worked way fewer hours. There's plenty of money to be made
in engineering, but you have to go into management. Still it's a
lot easier than becoming a lawyer and trying to make partner. If
there are engineers switching to law in significant numbers, I'm
sure it's because they couldn't hack it as engineers.
|5.10.07 @ 3:55PM|#
Instead of threatening to sue people who use a supposedly trademarked word, why can't the trademark owner just send a letter to the purported infringer - "Dear X, Having considered your use of the phrase 'have a nice day' [or whatever], we hereby license and permit you to use that phrase in your business so long as you pay us a license fee of $5.00 [or some other really low number]." That would show that they're asserting their trademark, so no-one can say they're abandoning their right of enforcement in case they want to sue an infringer in the future.
|5.10.07 @ 4:00PM|#
Mad Max,
Paying that $5.00 could be construed against you as an admission
that you were infringing Overbearing Ogre Corp.'s rights.
Because a trademark is supposed to be a brand identifier, even
licensing it too much could probably get you into some trouble.
I've been out of pure IP for too long, so no idea if there's any
caselaw on this issue.
|5.10.07 @ 4:08PM|#
Warren,
According to payscale.com, starting salaries for lawyers are higher
than for all engineering disciplines (although EE and CE are within
a few thousand).
As for working fewer hours, you obviously don't know anyone in a
silicon valley startup.
Dave W.|5.10.07 @ 4:09PM|#
Dave W.: I didn't see the "generic" defense, i.e., "family
feast" is generic for a restaurant promotion where families get
together and feast.
Well, I must re-iterate that I don't know anything about UK
trademark law. But, some further comments:
DISTINCTIVE CHARACTER
However, in the US you can make the "genericness" defense (phrase
doesn't function as a trademark, even without other businesses
using it. In fact, in the US, I am not even sure that
trademark-type use by third parties is helpful to establish
"genericness" because if the third party businesses are
using the phrase as one would use a trademark (eg, on a big banner
in big letters) then that would seem to argue that that third party
believed the words were something other than generic. For example,
on the McDonald's sign, the word "McDonald's" appears in a
considerably larger font than "hamburgers." Ultimately, I don't
think third party business use is considered probative of either
genericness or distinctiveness.
Moving to the merits on the "distinctive character" issue, as you
may know, the US has five categories: (1) fanciful / inherently
distinctive ; (2) arbitrary trademark; (3) suggestive; (4)
descriptive; and (5) generic. Above, I called the trademark here
"dumb" because it is either "descriptive" or "generic," and is
therefore, under US law it would be invalid (at worst) or
exceedingly weak (at best). Perhaps the reason they allow generic
and borderline generic registrations in the UK is that they know
that the generic and borderline generic marks are not going to
provide much leverage in commerce as a practical matter. This case,
and its speedy, favorable (to the little guy) resolution may indeed
be a good example of that dynamic in action.
OTHER DEFENSES
Rather, I was thinking that subsequent use by third party
businesses was being used (or was of concern to forward-thinking
KFC counsel) because of trademark abandonment and/or prior use.
Now, assuming they had an actual registration here, I am not sure
how much concern there would be about abandonment. I don't know how
contestable, or on what grounds, a trademark registration is in the
UK. So trademark abandonment may or may not have been a real,
potential concern here.
Most likely what was going on here is that KFC was concerned about
prior use, and wanted to quietly scare prior users into abandoning.
My guess is that prior use can cause problems in the UK, even for a
registered trademark. However, if the prior use quietly disappears,
without a trace in tangible media, before any "real" litigation
starts, then the prior use is not a problem.
|5.10.07 @ 4:09PM|#
...although your point about less college loan debt is an important mitigating factor.
|5.10.07 @ 4:09PM|#
If there are engineers switching to law in significant
numbers, I'm sure it's because they couldn't hack it as
engineers
That's not the comment. The comment is that they are "engineers" in
that they are paying attention to only numbers and lack people
skills.
There are some engineers that become attorneys. Personally, I
couldn't figure out how to not have a job through law school. Then
again, I wouldn't feel so inclined as to engage in the above
silliness that causes Dave W to whistle and roll the eyes.
Dave W.|5.10.07 @ 4:10PM|#
Warren, there's big money to be made as patent
attorney.
I used to make a lot of money. Now I don't.
|5.10.07 @ 4:12PM|#
Next I think KFC should sue the TV series Family Feud, because that sounds a lot like "family food" which has practically the same meaning as "family feast."
Dave W.|5.10.07 @ 4:13PM|#
Because a trademark is supposed to be a brand identifier,
even licensing it too much could probably get you into some
trouble. I've been out of pure IP for too long, so no idea if
there's any caselaw on this issue.
This used to be more of a concern than it is now, but I think that
is more of a shift in practice than actual law.
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%22naked+license%22&btnG=Search&meta=
|5.10.07 @ 4:14PM|#
I've been calling for an end to copyright for a while now. I use to say that TM law was fine and dandy, didn't need any overhauling. Now I'm coming to the opinion that we'd be better off doing away with the whole concept of IP altogether. Pharmaceuticals being the primary thing that keeps me from going completely over that cliff.
Dave W.|5.10.07 @ 4:16PM|#
"However, in the US you can make the "genericness" defense
(phrase doesn't function as a trademark, even without other
businesses using it."
Should have been:
--In the US you can make a "no distinctive character" (or
"genericness") defense, even without any evidence of other
businesses using it.--
(trying to cram to much in this afternoon.)
|5.10.07 @ 4:16PM|#
I've been calling for an end to copyright for a while now. I
use to say that TM law was fine and dandy, didn't need any
overhauling. Now I'm coming to the opinion that we'd be better off
doing away with the whole concept of IP altogether. Pharmaceuticals
being the primary thing that keeps me from going completely over
that cliff.
I dunno, I kind of like the idea that I can know what's in a
package based on the brand name and logo printed on it.
I know, I know, I'm a big-government statist.
|5.10.07 @ 4:17PM|#
If I made a movie where a character described some despicable behavior as a "family feast", could KFC sue? Similarly, if one character told another to "just do it", does Nike call the lawyers?
|5.10.07 @ 4:18PM|#
"I kind of like the idea that I can know what's in a package
based on the brand name and logo printed on it."
This used to be the basis for trademark, but in today's
environment, trademark law is based much more on protecting
pseudo-property than avoiding consumer confusion.
Dave W.|5.10.07 @ 4:20PM|#
I've been calling for an end to copyright for a while now. I
use to say that TM law was fine and dandy
One time when you were gnashing your teeth about copyright, i asked
you to consider that it was a copyrighted article that caused you
to there gnash your teeth about copyright.
Now that you are wailing about trademark, I would ask you to
consider that this publicity only benefits "The Tan Hill Inn"
because customers interested in the Tan Hill Inn's fare (as
described in the article) can seek out The Tan Hill Inn by name,
and not be concerned that some other North Yorkshire restaurant is
calling itself The Tan Hill Inn. the reason that this is not a
concern for these new, hungry customers is trademark law.
|5.10.07 @ 4:28PM|#
Lawyers in NYC can start at $165,000. I don't know any engineers that make that kind of lube their first year out of school, not even phd's in biomed. But Other Matt is correct, my point was that engineers tend to see the world in more objective terms than is appropriate for trademark and copyright.
|5.10.07 @ 4:29PM|#
GBMD,
You may have a point there. I don't know anyone involved in a
startup (silicone valley or otherwise). Getting a new business off
the ground is way hard and the cheapest thing you've got is your
own labor. I myself am a EE most of the engineers I know are EEs
and MEs. We all found good paying jobs straight out of college. All
in corporations with well paved career paths.
On the other hand. I half a dozen or so lawyers. Most of them had
to take non-lawyer work for a time even after they passed the bar.
When they did get their first real lawyer jobs they all worked like
dogs, and were treated the same by their firms. After ten years or
so, they all started doing much better.
All the lawyers are climbing the ladder, whereas only half the
engineers are (I myself have no desire to go beyond Senior
Engineer). But none of us ever had to live in those inner-city 600
sqft apartments that the lawyers I know rented the first five years
out of law school.
|5.10.07 @ 4:34PM|#
Lamar,
I don't know any engineer that made that much out of the shoot
either. But neither do I know any lawyers that did. My guess is
that to get hired as a newly minted lawyer in NYC, you had to be #1
in your class.
|5.10.07 @ 4:37PM|#
Now that you are wailing about trademark, I would ask you to
consider that this publicity only benefits "The Tan Hill Inn"
because customers interested in the Tan Hill Inn's fare (as
described in the article) can seek out The Tan Hill Inn by name,
and not be concerned that some other North Yorkshire restaurant is
calling itself The Tan Hill Inn. the reason that this is not a
concern for these new, hungry customers is trademark
law.
I contend that a free market could adapt and deal with this problem
without the protection of TM
|5.10.07 @ 4:50PM|#
I'm pretty confident that there's a much bigger spread in lawyers' salaries than there is for engineers'. In law, those who went to top schools and/or were at the top of their classes are the ones who get the really big starting salaries (and along with that a shot at a highly lucrative partnernership slot). The majority of grads have to hustle to find jobs that range from decent pay to pay near the poverty level. An unlucky few never do find jobs as lawyers and become paralegals, LEXIS reps, etc.
|5.10.07 @ 4:51PM|#
I rather like intellectual property protection, but of a
reasonable scope, not what we have today. Ditto trademark (which is
not really IP).
I'd like to stick it to the various hyper-IP lobbies by amending
the Constitution to further clarify the whole limited times, etc.
language.
|5.10.07 @ 4:54PM|#
Also, engineers, while they may not reach the dollar peaks that
lawyers do, on average, are members of a much more valuable
profession than we lawyer types. At least, I think so.
I've forbidden my step children and my womb-occupying daughter to
ever consider the practice of law. As for where my encouragement
does lie, well, let's just say that we watch a lot of
Mythbusters.
Dave W.|5.10.07 @ 5:00PM|#
I contend that a free market could adapt and deal with this
problem without the protection of TM
I contend that a free market can contend with over-aggressive IP
lawyers.
As a matter of fact, I contend that that is exactly what happened
in the KFC versus Tan Hill Inn case we are now commenting on.
Dave W.|5.10.07 @ 5:04PM|#
I rather like intellectual property protection, but of a
reasonable scope, not what we have today.
Check out my patent blog, then. I just finished an entry on the
latest case where the patent on an electronic reading toy was found
both not infringed and obvious (both at district court and now on
appeal).
Earlier this week I had an entry on a case where the jury found a
patent on genetically engineered corn invalid for obviousness. Also
affirmed on appeal.
There may be more good stuff happening than you realize, but you
ain't gonna find it above the fold here.
|5.10.07 @ 5:05PM|#
Lamar,
To address your point directly, many engineers have excellent
people skills. Many of us don't. I myself (while much better than
my younger self) am godawful in dealing with people. I'm much
better with machinery. Machines always obey the laws of nature. If
you think about it long and hard enough you can always solve a
machine problem.
People on the other hand, are infinitely complex. They obey laws
that are far far beyond my understanding. No matter how long you
study them you still can't figure them out.
It will come as no surprise therefore, that I find the notion that
the law should be applied subjectively abhorrent.
|5.10.07 @ 5:07PM|#
Warren,
No doubt the relative salaries change with supply and demand. When
I got out of college in the late eighties, engineers had a tough
time finding work and lawyers were in high demand. But law schools
were at all time records for students (because of the success of
the TV show LA Law), your friends must have been in this cohort,
because that is when it was tough for lawyers to find work. Now
with all them ferriners taking our engineering jobs, the balance
has no doubt shifted back to lawyers.
|5.10.07 @ 5:09PM|#
engineers, while they may not reach the dollar peaks that
lawyers do, on average, are members of a much more valuable
profession than we lawyer types
Not to mention the teachers. And the heroes in the police and fire
departments. And the young men and women who are risking their
lives for our country. And brave journalists. And Ralph
Nader.
:-P
|5.10.07 @ 5:11PM|#
"I'm pretty confident that there's a much bigger spread in
lawyers' salaries than there is for engineers'."
There's some truth there.
|5.10.07 @ 5:12PM|#
And, for the record, I was making a sweeping generalization. I
know some incredibly people saavy (not to mention sexy)
engineers.
I'm surprised nobody made a joke about the people who drive trains,
you know, engineers.
|5.10.07 @ 5:19PM|#
I have a number of close relatives who are engineers
(structural, electrical, software). And I've met quite a few of
their friends and colleagues.
I have never met a sexy engineer.
Now, of course, absence of proof is not proof of absence, but . . .
.
|5.10.07 @ 5:27PM|#
"I don't think you should have to be an intellectual
property lawyer to know the difference between copyrights and
trademarks."
Oooh...I'm so stowin' that to use at a later date!
|5.10.07 @ 5:28PM|#
It looks like the NFL owns a lot of trademarks, including "one
for the thumb," "the big game," "run to daylight," and others. Of
course, these appear to be specific use trademarks (like on
merchandise related to football).
Riley's "three-peat" looks to be limited to apparel.
The USPTO website is pretty cool.
|5.10.07 @ 5:47PM|#
Ack. My post got truncated. Let's try again, shall we?
Not to mention the teachers. And the heroes in the police and fire departments. And the young men and women who are risking their lives for our country. And brave journalists. And Ralph Nader.
:-P
jp,
And the prostitutes.
|5.10.07 @ 5:51PM|#
Darn, I was all excited about checking out the USPTO website to see the prostitutes.
|5.10.07 @ 6:00PM|#
jp,
Oh, they're there. Just keep looking. I believe the commissioner is
one, as are a number of examiners.
|5.10.07 @ 6:03PM|#
Somewhat ironic that Kentucky Fried Chicken changed their name
to KFC due to a trademark action by the state of Kentucky...
http://www.snopes.com/lost/kfc.htm
|5.10.07 @ 7:32PM|#
@Bob: Somewhat ironic that Kentucky Fried Chicken changed their
name to KFC due to a trademark action by the state of
Kentucky...
http://www.snopes.com/lost/kfc.htm
Gotta call BS on Bob. Given that KFC trademarked the phrase
Kentucky Fried Chicken in 1950 and has vigorously protected same
trademark (see above) there's no way the Commonwealth could claim
their trademark was infringed by the PRIOR registered trademark.
Even a Kentucky court wouldn't fall for that one. Don't believe
everything you see on the web. Or can I sell you my collection of
Jessica Alba Noodes. Only $5 a month man.
jf|5.10.07 @ 7:40PM|#
scandalrag,
Considering the rest of the article, I'd call BS too.
Kentucky Fried Chicken were not the only ones who bravely refused to knuckle under. The name of the most famous horse race in North America, held every year at Churchill Downs, was changed from the "Kentucky Derby" to "The Run for the Roses" for similar reasons; many seed and nursery outfits that had previously offered Kentucky Bluegrass switched to a product known as "Shenendoah Bluegrass" instead; and Neil Diamond's song "Kentucky Woman" was dropped from radio playlists at his request, as the licensing fees he was obligated to pay the Commonwealth of Kentucky exceeded the peformance royalties he was receiving for the airplay.
highnumber|5.10.07 @ 7:45PM|#
scandalrag is so right.
Snopes has some pages designed to demonstrate False Authority
Syndrome.
Also, George Bernard Shaw did not pen a poorly-attended play called
"Closed For Remodeling."
Click the link for more info at the bottom of the Snopes page. I'll
bet Bob knew he was putting us on.
|5.11.07 @ 12:06AM|#
Been a while since I knew anything about trademarks (about 9
years, in fact) but doesn't the trademark also have to resonate
with the public, so as to identify its holder to a critical mass of
viewers/readers/hearers? So that even if it's registered, if nobody
actually associates the TM with the source, then it's not really a
TM anymore?
Is that still/was it ever true?
Because, I have lived in this country all my life, seen umpteen
hours of KFC commercials, seen hundreds, if not thousands, of KFC's
during my travels, and yet, I have never, never, never, ever, have
I heard, thought of, or had float through my transom the phrase
"Family Feast" while in proximity of a KFC. Granted, I stopped
eating that unmitigated garbage as soon as I gained emancipation,
but even today I stopped at a combo KFc/Taco Bell on the
interstate, and ate the Taco Bell food, and even being inside one
of their stores, STILL didn't see anything connected to KFC
regarding this "Family Feast" business.
If that IS protectible, it is about a weak-ass trademark if ever
I've heard of one. Not exactly the NBC Peacock.
|5.11.07 @ 12:20AM|#
I've been calling for an end to copyright for a while now. I
use to say that TM law was fine and dandy, didn't need any
overhauling. Now I'm coming to the opinion that we'd be better off
doing away with the whole concept of IP altogether. Pharmaceuticals
being the primary thing that keeps me from going completely over
that cliff.
Glad you've still got that, otherwise I'd invite you down to
Avenida Revolucion in Tijuana, to have the, um, "carne asada",
which may be rat turds or donkey tits at the "Taco Bell", then stop
by the Farmacia on your way home for some, ah, "Pepto Bismol" which
may be kool aid, battery acid, and/or rat poison. But it's ok
because there's no intellectual property protection there! **
** Unless ip-rights holders have kept up their grease payments to
the Federales, in which case there will be an occasional IP raid...
of which all bribe-paying street-merchants will receive advance
warning.
|5.11.07 @ 4:16PM|#
Well guys, as a recovering engineer, mostly because I can't stand working with the vast majority (sorry Warren, but at least you are aware of the social ineptitude), I can attest that there are, in fact, a few sexy engineers running around. And not just the ones looking for a Mrs. degree. I have zero to contribute to the actual law discussion in the background here, but I can verify that relative salaries follow a cyclic pattern over time, depending on what year you graduated with which degree. Hi Lamar, hugs and kisses.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245