Spam Lawsuit's Last Laugh is at Hormel's Expense

Brian Cartmell writes "An article at the Minneapolis — StarTribune site covers a significant setback for the Hormel food company, in a case that's being closely watched by security companies across the country. Seattle-based Spam Arrest has gone up against the creator of the food substance in court, fighting for the right to use the word spam in its company name. The US Trademark Trial and Appeal board has sided with the spam fighters, agreeing that consumers of the Spam product would never confuse the food with junk email. 'Derek Newman, Spam Arrest's attorney, said the decision opens the door for many other anti-spam software companies ... "Spam Arrest fought this battle for the whole software industry," Newman said.'"

Comments

Re:Where did it come from?

[aberkvam]

Does anybody have a definitive origin? Like the bug in Grace Hoppers log book?

Grace Hopper was not the origin of the term "bug" to refer to a defect in a mechanical device. Both "bug" and "debug" were in use before then. Thomas Edison, for example, referred to bugs in his inventions. Wikipedia's article on software bugs is a good place to start learning more.

Re:At whose expense?

[Jay L]

and hormel wanted to cash in on the name despite (or because of) the declining popularity of the meat(ish) product... Instead, meh... They try to push the legal envelope and get a paper cut. Potted meatheads.

Wow, you really just got that information from a doctor with a glove, didn't you?

Hormel actually 'got it' pretty early on, and had a good sense of humor about it, too. They're in a bind, of course, because they don't want to lose the trademark for the meat, but they don't want to lose the goodwill of the community by acting all RIAA-like. (Ironically, their meat itself is NOT in a bind. (Little sausage-casing humor there.))

So at first, they said "Look, just use lower case letters for the e-mail, and we'll use capital letters for our product." But that didn't really work, because nobody could remember which was which, and everyone always likes to capitalize Internet terms that aren't acronyms.

So then they said "OK, just don't trademark it yourself."

Now they're losing that case. (Ironically, their meat itself is NOT in a case. (Little sausage-binding humor there.))

Re:At whose expense?

[Penguinisto]

And spam is spam precisely because of the negative connotations.

Well... not exactly. Spam email got its tag from Monty Python's Spam skit*, not from someone's recollection of how SPAM tastes (At least not directly).

*(if you are a true geek, you would know exactly why that would be an apt application).

FWIW, SPAM (the potted meat) is still considered a tasty thing along the left-hand side of the Pacific Rim.

/P

Re:Sure and that's what Apple said about Apple too

[Registered Coward v2]

Apple Records (a 'music' company) sued Apple Computer (a 'computer' company) over the name thing. Apple Records initially didn't do much about Steve Jobs use of their name back when Apple records was the big dog and Apple Computer was a nobody because no one would ever confuse computers with music. Right. Apple Records has pretty much been eclipsed by Apple Computer now and Jobs won the latest trademark dispute thanks to so many years of using the Apple name.

Apple did not win the latest trademark dispute becasue of size or name recognition; they had a clause in their license agreement taht was interpreted to allow them to move into music related computer products. They later reached an agreement with Apple Records over the ownership of the Apple trademark, which makes sense since Apple Computer is a much bigger dog and can better protect the Apple name. In any case; it was done via agreemnets between teh two companies, not a court awarding Apple rights to the trademark.

Re:Sure and that's what Apple said about Apple too

[idontgno]

If Hormel loses, we will no longer know if we are getting the genuine SPAM, or an imitator, when we go the supermarket.

That's hype. In the arena of food products, the SPAM mark will still be valid and enforceable.

To quote The Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School:

So, for example, the use of an identical mark on the same product would clearly constitute infringement. If I manufacture and sell computers using the mark "Apple," my use of that mark will likely cause confusion among consumers, since they may be misled into thinking that the computers are made by Apple Computer, Inc. Using a very similar mark on the same product may also give rise to a claim of infringement, if the marks are close enough in sound, appearance, or meaning so as to cause confusion. So, for example, "Applet" computers may be off-limits; perhaps also "Apricot." On the other end of the spectrum, using the same term on a completely unrelated product will not likely give rise to an infringement claim. Thus, Apple Computer and Apple Records can peacefully co-exist, since consumers are not likely to think that the computers are being made by the record company, or vice versa.

-- http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm#7, emphasis mine

The first boldfaced bit covers your end-of-the-world hyperbole case. The second boldfaced bit is the actual case: The same trade name applied to distinct and unrelated products will probably not be infringement, which is borne out in the specific lawsut TFA was about.

ObDisclaimer: IANAL, but I bet the clever chaps at Harvard Law School are.