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.'"

How very noble of them

[by Anonymous Coward]

Too bad they spam people who use their service or email their customers: http://www.politechbot.com/p-04457.html [politechbot.com]

At whose expense?

[chuck (477)]

I think the point of the ruling is that it's NOT at Hormel's expense, since no one confuses junk mail with canned meat.

Plus, I don't know if it should really be considered a victory for the software industry that companies don't have to come up with creative names.

Re:At whose expense?

[by Anonymous Coward]

Creativity isn't really the issue, it's trademarking of words that are commonly used.

SPAM was a potted meat UNTIL it became part of the neolexicon... and hormel wanted to
cash in on the name despite (or because of) the declining popularity of the meat(ish) product.

If Hormel had actively tried to market its meat product USING the new definition of the word,
perhaps in a clever TV or print campaign, they might actually capitalize.

Instead, meh... They try to push the legal envelope and get a paper cut. Potted meatheads.

Re:At whose expense?

[somersault (912633)]

Well their cans have cut enough people anyway, serves them right.

And spam is spam precisely because of the negative connotations. How are they going to market that? Buy our processed meat! It's like junk mail, but you can eat it!

Re:At whose expense?

[Penguinisto (415985)]

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:At whose expense?

[Jay L (74152)]

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:

[Just Some Guy (3352)]

In fact, just because you 'invent' a new word, such as "Ptbbth", and 50 years later it coincidentally gets used to described chunky ham-handed hormel-loving sloths named Jay in the common lexicon, you can't sue the world to reclaim the word you 'invented'. Sorry, it's called fair use. Patent law 101.

Considering you're mixing patents, trademarks, and copyright (via "fair use"), I think we can safely file your legal opinion under "talking out my ass".

Oh I beg to differ!

[Rik Sweeney (471717)]

consumers of the Spam product would never confuse the food with junk email

I went to see Spam-a-lot in the theatre. Much to my horror it wasn't about junk email or an out of control food product, it was about some bloody knights or something like that.

I'm going to appeal.

Time to file a lawsuit then.

[wiredog (43288)]

spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam

Lameness filter encountered.
Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted.

Oh

[goldaryn (834427)]

And all this time I thought the emails "Give her more meat" were from Hormel..

Settlement suggestion

[ciaohound (118419)]

Spam Arrest could change their name to Arrest Arrest Arrest Arrest Spam Arrest; that's got less spam in it.

About that Icon...

[ackthpt (218170)]

consumers of the Spam product would never confuse the food with junk email.

And yet Slashdot still has a spam (note lowercase 's') icon which looks like a piggy with a brick of presumably Spam as part of its body [slashdot.org], where formerly the icon was indeed a can of Spam.

Well played Slasdot!

Re:

[nine-times (778537)]

Also, what do a lot of spam-blockers call good e-mail? Ham. So they're implying that spam is like ham, except that it's bad and you don't want it.

Re:

[cromar (1103585)]

Well... who would argue with that analogy?

Re:

[morgan_greywolf (835522)]

IIRC, Slashdot received a c&d to remove the can of spam a while back, but I can't seem to find a link to the story anywhere. Hmph.

Re:

[Abreu (173023)]

Well, maybe after the lawsuits over we can go back to the can as an icon...

Well, that's just sad.

[wattrlz (1162603)]

I wonder if using the term, " Pepsi" to refer to bait-and-switch schemes would fare as well in a court of law.

Re:

[nine-times (778537)]

What about adding "dys" as a prefix to pepsi and using the resulting word to mean "stomach ache". I'm sure the makers of Pepsi don't want the product associated with stomach aches.

You're thinking of 'dyspepsia'

[DarrenR114 (6724)]

You missed the 'a' at the end.

The history of Pepsi was that it was introduced as a curative for dyspepsia, so the makers of Pepsi probably wouldn't mind a little publicity on their product's history.

On a related note - Dr. Pepper was created for the same purpose, using prune juice in their recipe.

Re:

[nine-times (778537)]

I know, I just didn't want to kill the joke by being too correct.

Re:

[Huntr (951770)]

In that case they should call it "New Coke."

Explanatory link [wikipedia.org], for you young'uns.

Everyone sing!

[thatskinnyguy (1129515)]

I like bread and butter.
I like toast and jam.
I like those good and simple things,
and that's why I like SPAM!

Food?

[Akaihiryuu (786040)]

Since when is Spam considered food? Sorry, couldn't resist.

A delicacy

[spun (1352)]

Actually, Spam is considered a delicacy in the Pacific Islands. In Hawaii, you can buy Spam sushi from the manapua man. He's a guy who drives around in an ice cream truck selling pork buns, candy, and spam products. I shit you not. Some claim that the Pacific Islander's spam mania comes from their cannabilistic heritage and Spam's taste resemblance to the other, other white meat. I sort of doubt it, I think it's more of a cargo cult type of thing. Magical meat in a can that never goes bad had to have impressed the heck out of tropical islanders when it first arrived.

Re:

[wizardforce (1005805)]

The military was camped out on those islands a lot and one thing they brought was SPAM. SPAM was a common food in the military and the locals had fairly easy access to SPAM and eventually took a liking to it.

Re:

[Red Flayer (890720)]

Some claim that the Pacific Islander's spam mania comes from their cannabilistic heritage and Spam's taste resemblance to the other, other white meat.

What I've read is that Spam is currently popular where two things intersect:

1. A history of pork consumption among the resident people (which is true for the Pacific isles) and
2. American military presence from the 1930s(?) through the 1970s(?).

I can't remember the date ranges, but this is true for Hawaii, the Philippines, etc. -- it's tied to the US Mili

Where did it come from?

[$RANDOMLUSER (804576)]

I've heard it's from the Monty Python "Spam" sketch, but I've also heard it's a British thing from WWII - "Spam - everybody gets it, nobody wants it." - Does anybody have a definitive origin? Like the bug in Grace Hoppers log book?

Re:

[rucs_hack (784150)]

It always was unwelcome, and remained so long after the war, being a food of last resort that turns up when you are, almost without fail, not wanting to see it.

That's the most likely origin.

Re:

[$RANDOMLUSER (804576)]

That's what I thought. It's almost as iconic to the Brits as the TARDIS. Do you have a citation, perhaps?

Re:Where did it come from?

[aberkvam (109205)]

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 [wikipedia.org] is a good place to start learning more.

Re:

[$RANDOMLUSER (804576)]

I know that. The log entry said something like "first actual case of..."

Re:

[DCTooTall (870500)]

Wouldn't be surprised if it's both, actually.....

It was the older online geek culture which labeled unwanted email spam. Based off the popularity of Monty Python with that group, The name choice was most likely a reference to the sketch.

NOW.... Where did the idea for the Sketch come from?

Considering the influence and ability of classic Brit TV (Science Fiction and Comedy being the 2 biggest contributors) to bridge the pond... I honestly would not be surprised if most people outside of the UK know

Re:

[Tony Hoyle (11698)]

The monty python sketch was funny because it referred to the earlier cultural references to Spam... otherwise they'd have made a sketch about eggs or something.

However the modern use of spam is derived from the sketch - the repetition of 'spam' mirroring directly my experience of reading my inbox some mornings :p

the other Coke

[xPsi (851544)]

I wonder if anti drug groups at some point had to fight the same trademark battle with Coke (and lost, since I don't think any anti drug groups today have the word 'Coke' in them)? Of course the Coke (tm) name is actually historically associated with the coca plant, unlike SPAM (tm) and its spam counterpart which have no obvious connection except cultural non sequiturism.

Re:

[Red Flayer (890720)]

unlike SPAM (tm) and its spam counterpart which have no obvious connection except cultural non sequiturism.

SPAM (tm) == Spiced Ham.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

Re:

[mulvane (692631)]

Coke at one point in time had cocaine in it. It caused headache's in many people and the FDA forced them to take it out and reformulate. It maintained the name and the same great taste though.

Sure and that's what Apple said about Apple too

[dtjohnson (102237)]

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. Hormel will lose their famous 'SPAM' brand if they don't fight (and they may still lose it anyway even if they do.) If Hormel loses, we will no longer know if we are getting the genuine SPAM, or an imitator, when we go the supermarket.

Re:

[technobabblingfool (1133901)]

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

Now that's funny.

Sorry for Hormel

[IPFreely (47576)]

Well, you kind of have to feel sorry for Hormel a little.

They had some product out there with a bizzare name. Then the Monty Python skit comes along and satirizes it. That's not so bad really.

But that leads to other people using the name for a different meaning, a meaning garnered from the Monty Python skit rather than the original product. Then the new meaning drowns out their original poduct and takes their name away. Now that hurts.

They didn't cause any of this, and for the most part it was not an intentional attack on them either. They really did not have much recourse at each step because the satire and redefinition were legitimate legal uses. It's all just a sad twist of fate.

Aw well. They can always do what all the SPAMmers do: rename their product and sell it to someone else who does not know any better.

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

[Registered Coward v2 (447531)]

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 (624372)]

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 [harvard.edu], 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.

Implied insults

[CopaceticOpus (965603)]

So I could start a company that cleans up dog shit and call it Microsoft Scoopers?

Re:

[Cro Magnon (467622)]

No, because there is a real possibility of confusing dog shit with Microsoft products.

Nothing to do with email or lawsuits, but...

[mcmonkey (96054)]

To get me to eat it at dinner
They said I'd grow up like Bruce Jenner
He was a winner that never knew defeat
And when he got hungry
When he got hungry
He cracked open that special treat

Spam
-Save Ferris

Sucks for Hormel...

[Dmala (752610)]

You have to feel a little bit bad for Hormel. Their 60-odd year old brand name has, through no fault of their own, become inextricably associated with a massive, universally despised, worldwide problem. It's one thing to lose a trademark that has become generic, or to have a negative association created because of something the company did. Having the trademark appropriated because of a Monty Python sketch and a bunch of geeks is a bummer.

Re:

[PhxBlue (562201)]

Their 60-odd year old brand name has, through no fault of their own, become inextricably associated with a massive, universally despised, worldwide problem.

Clearly you've never eaten SPAM.

Re:

[ianare (1132971)]

[SPAM] has ... become inextricably associated with a massive, universally despised, worldwide problem.

Might I be so bold as to say that this was always the case ?

Too bad they don't have a sense of humor.

[nobodyman (90587)]

Disclaimer: I actually *like* SLT's (spam, lettuce, tomato) so I may be biased (or insane).

I remember watching some show on Food network ("Good Eats"? I think.) and they covered a Spam cook off. Some of the recipes seemed actually decent, but mostly tongue-in-cheek acknowledgments that spam is not exactly the best tasting thing in the world. But the funniest thing about is that they interviewed some Hormel exec and the guy had NO SENSE OF HUMOR WHATSOEVER, and was almost visibly agitated at the suggestio

Tagged "patents"?

[LocalH (28506)]

What braindead Slashdotter tagged this story with "patents"? It's a trademark issue, not a patent one.

Re:

[DCTooTall (870500)]

Actually something that I kinda find interesting is some stuff within the second part of the Article. Appearently not only is hormel the sponsor of Monty Python's Spamalot, but they even show Python videos within their Spam museum.

It also indicated that they accept and have no problem with the meaning that the word 'spam' has taken in recent years, and with it's use as the slang term (in lowercase). Their issue comes from the use of the word "Spam" (capitilized) in trademarks since it was a word a