Hormel Back on The Spam Offensive 305
Anonymous Howard writes "After an xapparent setback in litigation, Hormel
Foods is again pursuing actions against entities and organizations over the 'spam'
trademark. According to the web site of DSPAM, an open-source
statistical anti-spam filter, "Anti-spam software manufacturers may be in for a
rude awakening. Hormel Foods Corporation and Hormel Foods LLC have recently
filed for extensions to oppose or to cancel many new and existing spam-related
trademarks and are even filing a few technology trademarks of their own. The
DSPAM project, a popular open source and freely available spam filtering
application, has already received two such notices of opposition from the
trademark trial and appeal board. The complete history can be viewed
here. This came about a year after the software's user community scrounged
up the fee to file for a trademark...""
SPAM vs spam (Score:5, Informative)
'DSPAM', as a company name, would seem to be a perfect example of what Hormel has *not* tolerated...
Trademarks (Score:4, Informative)
Of course, IANAL, so correct me if I'm wrong...
Re:SPAM vs spam (Score:4, Informative)
Quick Google search found Hormel's "SPAM and the Internet" [spam.com] page.
Their official stance (Score:5, Informative)
from: http://spam.com/ci/ci_in.htm [spam.com]
Also, from their Legal and Copyright page:
Re:Lets see... (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Eeeeewwwww! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Eeeeewwwww! (Score:1, Informative)
Second, Hormel has always allowed the use of "spam" to refer to email. They are only trying to protect the use of "SPAM," which is their trademark and which they have worked to protect for many years.
Re:Eeeeewwwww! (Score:5, Informative)
It's also not "by products," if you will. It's pork shoulder, which is a perfectly good part of the pig. Or bad, depending on your opinion of pork.
Re:You're stupid then (Score:5, Informative)
Quoted from the can... "Ingredients: Pork with Ham, Salt, Sugar, Sodium Nitrite." See picture [deskpicture.com].
Re:Spam (Score:2, Informative)
Nice Classification and famous marks (Score:5, Informative)
Under normal circumstances, marks in different classes are allowed to co-exists even if they are identical. For marks that are not entirely identical but merely very similar, like "Spam" vs. "SpamArrest", even more so.
For really well known marks, like Coca-Cola or IBM, there is an exception to this rule, which is called "Kodak protection" after the landmark case that is considered to have established the principle.
But in this case, where the original "Spam" trademark is so strongly tied to just one very specific product, I'd be very surprised if a court would find the "Spam" should enjoy Kodak protection. It's also quite debatable if "Spam" was ever that famous.
And even if there was a time when it could perhaps be argued that "Spam" was more frequently used to denote the "food" product, nowadays the meaning "junk email" is so widely established that I can't see how the owners of the origial "Spam" trademark could hope to be successful in their claims.
But perhaps they have some reasons for trying to pursue what to me looks like a very weak case indeed.
IANATML, but I've worked in the trademarks business for 25 years developing phonetic trademark search systems.
Re:Isn't going to work (Score:4, Informative)
Answering my own question: It's mostly fat. (Score:3, Informative)
According to a SPAM facts web page [claremont.edu], SPAM is mostly fat:
"Nutrition Information For SPAM (original style):
* Calories Per Serving: 170
* Calories Per Serving From Fat: 140"
Trademarks should never trump common speech (Score:4, Informative)
Trademarks work the way they do for a reason: because people want protection of their business and product names, but are not allowed to enforce the way the public uses language. A trademark holder gets a monopoly on a term that is not commonly in use for the purpose to which they have applied it. If the term does happen to go into common useage, they lose it. Trademarks should never be used to enforce how we use words.
This is why Bayer was forced to give up its trademarks on the words "aspirin" and "heroin." It's why Kodak ended up trying really hard to prevent their trademark from being used as a generic term for photographs after years of pushing their product that way. It's why Microsoft shouldn't have a trademark on the term "windows" when applied to a window-based GUI, and why Hormel should give up and either rename their product or accept that they have no case.
Of course this main "generic term" point is tangential. A case like this shouldn't even come to proving that spam is a generic term because the technology-related use of the word is in a diffierent industry from Hormel's anyway. If DSPAM were to go into the food business (ha, ha - I called SPAM "food"), then Hormel would have a case against them. But even as a "product" name, DSPAM should be in the clear because the term is applied to a different industry entirely.
Surely both points together mean that if DSPAM's lawyers cost the same as Hormel's, DSPAM would win.
They are required to do this (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Lets see... (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Eeeeewwwww! (Score:2, Informative)
Alarming...sometimes, bizarre...frequently, hilarious...depends on your sense of humor, bland...never.
Re:Eeeeewwwww! (Score:2, Informative)
Also, from what I'd heard - although I'm not a native English speaker, let alone an American, so I might be wrong - SPAM originally means just SPiced hAM, although most of the other explanations found here sound just as plausible.
Furthermore, I do not recall the details of the Monty Python sketch, but I do seem to recall reading of a really really annoying radio commercial for Spam, which was sung to "My Bonnie Lies Over the Ocean", but with slightly altered lyrics. I believe it went something like this (quoted from memory):
SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM
SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM
SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM
SPAM SPAM - SPAM SPAM
SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM - SPAM SPAM...
You get the picture...