Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EU Rejects Spam Maker's Trademark Bid

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the how-the-mighty-have-fallen dept.

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.'"

20 of 231 comments (clear)

  1. Well.... by diersing · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Are we really using Google to decide such matters? What else could Google decide for us?

    1. Re:Well.... by Sqwubbsy · · Score: 4, Funny

      Presidential elections?

      --
      $30 Off All Plans: Use code TRIPLESAWBUCK
    2. Re:Well.... by seanadams.com · · Score: 4, 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.

    3. Re:Well.... by jimicus · · Score: 5, Funny

      they'd rather eat cat feces, which smells the same but tastes slightly better.

      How do you know?

    4. Re:Well.... by thinsoldier · · Score: 5, Funny

      i've had lots of cats in my life
      I've seen them all eat poo on many occasions
      i've also seen dogs digging in my trash to snack on used kitty litter

      i tried feeding spam to 4 of my cats a few years ago, 3 didnt even bother to taste it
      1 ate it but threw up about an hour later

    5. Re:Well.... by Buran · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Doesn't really matter. This is an example of how language changes over time. A word with one meaning this decade can have an entirely different one in the next, and once the new meaning is as firmly entrenched as "spam = junk email" is, there's no going back. I don't know what the point is of all the moaning about this (on Hormel's part)... if they wanted to complain they should have done it a long, long time ago before the meaning change became entrenched.

      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.

      --
      i am a soviet space shuttle
  2. Poor Hormel. It's all the fault of those... by just_another_sean · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...damn vikings.

    --
    Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
  3. Number One by Billosaur · · Score: 5, Informative
    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...

    SPAM search

    And what is the first item listed, you ask? Why WWW.SPAM.COM - From Hormel Foods Corporation. Includes history, fan club, and facts. I'm pretty sure Hormel has had to fork over a lot of money to keep them at the top of any search for SPAM, to keep the trademark from being wiped away.

    --
    GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
    1. Re:Number One by k98sven · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Seems to me that would be a bad call for Hormel and the EU court, although I suspect the quote here has probably been taken out of context and given undue weight.

      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.

    2. Re:Number One by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's not what they were after.

      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).

  4. Trademark defense by marmoset · · Score: 3, Funny

    The next time someone bitches about Apple protecting their iPod trademark, I'm just going to forward them a link to this article.

  5. ordering instructions, please by revery · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    I just want to know how to order breakfast correctly. The last time I asked for Spam spam spam spam spam spam ham eggs spam spam spam bacon and spam, I got 6 advertisements for Viagra and Cialis, 3 pleas for extraditing Nigerian capital, an offer to augment my anatomy and blueberry pancakes served with Raspberry syrup and 2 raw quail eggs.

    Please help!!

    Sincerely,

    A Sad Spam Solicitor

  6. Stupid question of the day by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Ultimately, we are trying to avoid the day when the consuming public asks, 'Why would Hormel Foods name its product after junk e-mail?'"

    These would be the same people that will ask why makers of glass-that-fits-into-buildings-to-allow-people-to- see-into-other-areas chose to name their product after Microsoft's Operating System?

    Get a grip, Hormel.

    --
    Summation 2
    1. Re:Stupid question of the day by El+Torico · · Score: 4, Funny

      Here's another one, "Mercedes, that's an odd name. Why would anyone name their daughter after a car?"

      --
      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
    2. Re:Stupid question of the day by hotdiggitydawg · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hang on let me get this straight, his daughter is "Mercedes" and his friends are "Google" and "Wikipedia"? What an odd bunch of people...

  7. Re:So, lemme get this straight . . . by mwvdlee · · Score: 5, Informative

    You've got a serious case of patent == copyright == trademark.

    They are not all the same.

    The SCO/IBM case is (mainly) about copyright.
    The Transmeta/Intel case is about patents.
    Hormel's case is about a trademark.

    Besides, has Hormel really actively protected their trademark ever since people started using the word "Spam" for unsolicited e-mail? I've only heard about them doing so for the last two, or perhaps three, years.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  8. RTFA by tygt · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I haven't seen a properly relevant posting here yet. From TFA:
    "has lost a bid to claim the word as a trademark for unsolicited e-mails ... We do not object to use of this slang term to describe (unsolicited commercial e-mail)," the company said on its Web site, "although we do object to the use of the word "spam" as a trademark and to the use of our product image in association with that term."
    They don't like the idea of anyone else having "spam" in a trademarked name; they were trying to assert trademark for unsolicited email (and thus be able to protect such a trademark). No doubt, they have a trademark for the (not-so) Spiced Ham, and the EU isn't questioning that. They just denied Spam's request for trademark over spam emails.
  9. Trademarks by debrain · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Trademarks are a form of consumer protection. They allow you to buy Kellogg's Corn Flakes and get the product you are expecting, from the maker you presume to make it. The only real corporate protection is relatively incidental, being that it prevents competing and equivalent products from imitating the genuine article. So you have two purposes at work: consumer protection from confusion, and corporate protection from unfair competition arising from imitation.

    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.

  10. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  11. Simulated Pieces of Anonymous Mutants by Irvu · · Score: 3, Funny
    Hormel has made a point of suing many of the great defamers of their meat(ish) product. My personal favorite is when they sued Jim Henson for the character Spa'am leader of the Pig Pirates. The judge dismissed the case saying: "The American public can tell the difference between a puppet and a lunchmeat." (see Spam Bobbleheads, Spam Costumes and Spam Shorts. Spam Underwear has also been sold on occasion but I have yet to find any online.

    You can understand why the company puts in so much effort to protect the good name though. After all Spam (Scattered Parts of Anonymous Mammals) is important to many people. Both Hawaii and Alaska love Spam. As has been noted about Alaska:
    Spam® is like Alaska's only Congressman Don Young. Everyone makes fun of him, but he always wins by a landslide even though no one will ever admit voting for him. That's the story with Spam®. Nobody will admit eating it, but somebody is out there buying over 2,000 cans a day in Alaska.


    For more tasty info on the Simulated Pieces of Appalling Mutants see The Amazing and Fabulous Spam Site which includes a 300 DPI Scan of SPAM

    a href="

      It's funny to see how much effort the company puts into targeting the brand given that Spam is so important to