Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Hormel Sues Over SpamArrest Name

Posted by timothy on from the potted-meat-is-lawyer-brains dept.

slammin'j writes "According to this article from the Star Tribune, Hormel has filed a lawsuit against Spam Arrest LLC. for endangering "substantial goodwill and good reputation" of their meat product, Spam. If Hormel wins, it could be bad news for umpteen companies that make use of the word spam in their name."

8 of 526 comments (clear)

  1. Hormel will probably lose. by earthforce_1 · · Score: 4, Insightful


    IANAL disclaimer - The judge will probably rule there is no confusion between the two. Spam has taken on an entirely different generic meaning w.r.t email, that is unlikely to be confused with the popular luncheon meat. Hormel should have enforced their trademark much earler to stop the alternative usage of the word "Spam". This is almost certainly too little, too late.

    --
    My rights don't need management.
  2. Sounds legit to me... by swordboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Isn't one supposed to check for this kind of stuff prior to creation? I just started my own business and spent significant time on the patent/trademark website.

    --

    Life is the leading cause of death in America.
  3. Re:SPAM IS good... by douglas+jeffries · · Score: 3, Insightful

    as i understand, it was short for "spiced ham". but your suggestion seems far more accurate :-)

  4. Commonly used term by Datoyminaytah · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The term "SPAM", when used to refer to "unsolicited commercial electronic mail", is so commonly used that it is even used in the names of laws, such as the "Anti-Spam Act of 2003".

    http://www.spamlaws.com/federal/108hr2515.html

    Will Hormel also sue the U.S. Congress?

    While I'm all for companies defending their trademarks, I think Hormel has waited just a LITTLE bit too long on this one.

    --
    assert(birth_date<time-86400)
  5. Re:To late foo! by rifter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Heck, should have RTFA. It looks like they are only suing because Spam Arrest tried to Trademark Spam. in that case I think they are in their rights because otherwise the UCE company could try to stop them selling their meat-like substance as Spam.

  6. Re:To late foo! by arkanes · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Unless Hormel starts marketing either email filters or bulk email software, I don't see how it's an issue. Trademarks only cover things withing a specific trade.

  7. Re:I read, but by ReconRich · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Regardless, trademarks must be "vigorously defended" or they slip into the public domain. This may just be an attempt on the part of Hormel to ensure that SPAM does not slip into the public domain.

    -- Rich

    --
    Free your mind and your Ass will follow -- George Clinton
  8. Let's give Hormel some credit here by djembe2k · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The Cease and Desist in this case referenced in the parent post is for the use of images of cans of SPAM by an individual on his website, not just the term. They also threw in some stuff about domain names that use "spam" in them and so on, which is probably just typical lawyerly overkill. (By the way, does anybody know the outcome of this 5-year old case?)

    People keep saying that Hormel hasn't been defending their trademark, but it seems to me that they have established a clear policy on their site about how the feel about their trademark, and they've stuck consistently to it. In short, if you use "spam" generically, they don't care. If you use it in a way that associates it with their product (i.e. images of the product, or SPAM in all caps as they always do it), they'll come after you.

    In this case, somebody wants to trademark the name, and they are fighting that. It seems reasonable that two trademarks containing the word "spam" could be more of a threat than widespread, non-trademarked generic usage. Their position seems reasonable and consistent. Maybe wrong, maybe right, but reasonable.

    And I think that they should be given a lot of credit for this. It they were really sending out C&D letters consistently for years and years, they'd be one more of the many companies regularly mocked and griped about on /., but they haven't been. They've only taken legal action in rare cases that are more likely to affect them directly. They're using common sense, and keeping their lawyers in check, but not signing away their rights. Let's give them some credit.