EU Rejects Spam Maker's Trademark Bid 231
kog777 writes "The producer of the canned pork product Spam has lost a bid to claim the word as a trademark for unsolicited e-mails. EU trademark officials rejected Hormel Foods Corp.'s appeal, dealing the company another setback in its struggle to prevent software companies from using the word 'spam' in their products, a practice it argued was diluting its brand name. The European Office of Trade Marks and Designs, noting that the vast majority of the hits yielded by a Google search for the word made no reference to the food, said that 'the most evident meaning of the term SPAM for the consumers ... will certainly be unsolicited, usually commercial e-mail, rather than a designation for canned spicy ham.'"
Not entirely related but... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Well.... (Score:5, Insightful)
indeed, what an obviously self-selected sample set. Asking the _internet_ to tell you what spam is?
I reealize this was a European court and Spam is not popular over there, but imagine what you'd get if you asked, say 100 people as they walked through the canned meats section of a supermarket.
That's about as ridiculous as asking google to tell you what it means on the internet. It's all about context.
I don't think anyone would confuse spam with just email if you invited them over for a nice spam casserole. They'd just tell you they'd rather eat cat feces, which smells the same but tastes slightly better.
Did the EU really find... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Number One (Score:5, Insightful)
Thing is, I see no reason at all for how a trademark could become genericized merely by becoming a common word for something completely different. (Python reference intended)
The point, as I learned it, was that a trademark becomes generic when it becomes the generic term for that product. E.g. "Cola" is a generic term for a certain type of soft drink, but "Coca-Cola" is not.
"Yo-yo" used to be a trademark for a specific kind of spinning toy, but they lost it when it became the generic term for that kind of toy.
"Windows" is a generic term to begin with. But it wasn't (and still isn't) a generic term for operating system software.
Now "Spam" is indeed threatened as a trademark, since people indeed are referring canned corned beef in general as "Spam". But I can't see any relevance in whether people use the same term to refer to unsolicited email or not. It's not like there is any risk the two 'products' would ever be confused.
Re:Did the EU really find... (Score:2, Insightful)
RTFA (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well.... (Score:3, Insightful)
In an European supermarket?
Of course you would meet many people that way who are not familiar with internet spam, but the "Hormel spam" is not very well known over here. I guess the definition of spam as unsolicited bulk e-mail would still win out.
This said, the fact that spam is already a generic term among computer users should be reason enough to reject the trademark application as a trademark for unsolicited e-mails. Granting Hormel a trademark for spam as canned meat would still be OK, but that is not what they asked for.
Trademarks (Score:5, Insightful)
Does SPAM referring to "unsolicited email" confuse consumers, or misrepresent the corporate's product to unfairly compete? In this case the SPAM trademark applies to a canned meat product. The term is also in general use to refer to unsolicited email. They are separate industries, and consumers are unlikely to confuse unsolicited email with a canned meat product. Similarly, there are no concerns over unfair competition by imitation. Thus there is little harm to the consumer, nor a real concern to the corporation.
Further, the SPAM trademark owners let the term become diluted over the years to the point where it is commonly accepted; had they intervened a decade ago, their arguments would have been stronger. They are likely statutorily obligated to actively protect their trademark rights. Even if not a statutory obligation, failing to protect their rights is prejudicial in the eyes of most courts.
Re:Number One (Score:5, Insightful)
Hormel already have the tradmark for spam the meat product. They wanted the trademark for spam as unsolicited email as well.. The EU courts said no, which seems reasonable to me - that meaning of spam is part of the common language.
It's the same as Microsoft asking a court to give them the trademark to 'Windows' meaning 'pieces of glass in the side of a house'. They wouldn't get it either (well, maybe in a US court, but not in an independent one).
Re:Hey Hormel! Read THIS NOW! (Score:3, Insightful)
It has to everything do with the Monty Python skit however. They're the ones (if anyone can be blamed) most responsible for the coining of the phrase. When I first heard the comment 'Spam Email' used, like pretty much all the other net geeks I associated it immediately with the skit, cause it was funny and all us net geeks watched Python.
That the phrase is still in use twenty years later is rather surprising. I don't think anyone knows who the first computer user was to use the term, it's just one of those things that happened. But it has nothing to do with people's like or dislike of the product.
Re:Well.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hormel, you're too late. About a decade too late. Stop trying to herd cats and spend your money on something that's actually achievable -- you certainly are not going to get anywhere here. The increasing backlash of corporatization of everything certainly won't help you either.
Re:Spam spam spam! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Number One (Score:1, Insightful)
As I recall, with trademarks, you own all usage rights for the word, be it food or mail or music or whatever. Trademarks tend to be given to unique names. For example, Sony is a made-up word (based on sonus, the Latin word for sound). Having a trademark on the name Sony means they could sell anything they want and use the name Sony to identify it and no one else can. They can sell whatever they want and call it a Sony.
With strongmarks, you own the usage rights for the word only in a selected area. Strongmarks tend to be given to common names. For example, Nationwide is a common word. They have a strongmark on the word as it pertains to selling insurance only. Someone else named Nationwide could sell, say, cheese, and no one would confuse the two companies. Actually, I recall Apple Computers was sued by Apple Records when their computers started making sounds. I assume they thought that when people start thinking of Apple and sound, they would think of Apple Computers by mistake. So in a subtle defiance, as I've heard, Apple's first sound was Sosumi (So-Sue-Me). By a strange twist of fate, almost two decades later, people _do_ think Apple Computers when they think of Apple and sound.
But, trademarks can take on a life of their own. Take for example, Jell-O, Band-Aid, and Coke. These are all trademarked brand-names that have made their way into common lexicon. Jell-O is not gelatin, but Jell-O makes gelatin. Band-Aid is not an adhesive bandage, but they make them. Coke is not a cola, however Coca-Cola makes them. When brand-named trademarks make their way into the common lexicon, people start to forget what they are... seriously.
I watched a game show where they passed a ball back and forth and had people name words in a category. One category was: name flavors of Jell-O. They went back and forth name flavors: lemon, lime, orange, cherry, etc. Then after a few, one team said chocolate. *BUZZ* No, they said, chocolate is not a flavor of Jell-O. I was practically screaming at the television-- chocolate pudding is one of Jell-O's top flavors! But, as it goes, everyone in that show assumed Jell-O meant gelatin and since you don't see chocolate gelatin, they were wrong.
I believe I've even heard about Band-Aid trying to protect they're trademark in the past, because, do you ask for a Band-Aid or bandage? (Now that works in their favor.) Now, if you ask for a Band-Aid, do you get a Band-Aid bandage or a generic bandage? (That works against them.)
The Coke one I don't hear much in this area, but I hear in regions of the U.S., Coke has come to mean generic cola.
So, if I were Hormel, of course I would be concerned. Spam-email, even though it's unrelated to food, detracts from their brand recognition of their product. Some people have never heard of Spam, but they've probably heard of spam-email. Heck, those people might even see Spam on the self one day and think _it's_ a rip off of spam-email trying to make a fast buck. (Hey, there are all kinds in this world and not all appreciate history.)
If they really own a trademark on Spam, then no one can call bulk unsolicited mail spam without their permission. But, without doing research on this, I'm going to assume that either (1) they haven't been fighting this until recently (which I wonder about because I haven't heard much about them fighting this phenomenon before) or (2) as this is another country perhaps the laws on trademarks are different and they really do only own the name Spam like strongmark would function here.
Anyway, those are my two cents.
--Dave Romig, Jr.