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...""
Tough case (Score:5, Insightful)
But Spam? Of the people that actually enjoy eating it, would anything dissuade them from doing so? I mean, they're eating gelatinous pig parts. They don't seem like very discerning consumers to me.
Lets see... (Score:2, Insightful)
Spam Mail [google.com] gives back 52 million 200.000 results.
I think it is clear who loses this case - it's a numbers game...
SPAM is yummy. (Score:1, Insightful)
The low fat spam is the best tasting, the Turkey spam is an interesting variation on a theme.
The Hormel company should protect the name of their product.
If it was called getting 'McDonalded' junk e-mail,
you betcha McDonald's company would be sueing everybody in sight for misusing their product name...
Horse is out of the barn (Score:1, Insightful)
This is trying to close the barn door after the horse has run out, gone to the airport, and flown to Australia to play dijeridu in a punk band.
No way is Hormel ever going to successfully use litigation to stop the popular use of the name of its product to describe UCE. As long as the print media keeps putting quotes around it, all the lawyers in the world won't stop it.
Eeeeewwwww! (Score:3, Insightful)
Good question, but a disgusting one. Anyone ever eat Hormel Foods Spam at all? My understanding is that Spam is just a way of selling the fat and scraps that are left after processing other kinds of meat products. That's how spam email got its name; spam email is the least desirable kind of email; Spam meat is the least desirable kind of meat. Whoever named unwanted email "spam" was a communication genius; he gained instant comprehension.
Hormel Foods might want to think again about involving hundreds of thousands of logically minded people in thinking about their trademark and products. Any company that sells a product like Spam should want to avoid being featured on Slashdot.
Anyhow, it is too late. The word spam is far more associated now with unwanted email than it is with a meat byproduct. Hormel should have protested more strongly 10 years ago.
Trademark dilution and despoilment... (Score:3, Insightful)
They are also being quite reasonable in requesting that their trademark not be incorporated into other trademarks for association with something one wishes to avoid. It's not the same as Tiger which falls into the category of 'wordmarks'. SPAM was never a word so their argument is much stronger. DSPAM using SPAM is akin to taking someones custom artwork and adding a 'D' in front of it and calling it a different trademark.
Re:You're stupid then (Score:2, Insightful)
If they can't protect their trademark, they lose it. All you have to do is point me towards where the anti-spam vendors are using the word in conjunction with the food industry and I'm right with you.
Re:Trademarks (Score:5, Insightful)
Exxon, Lexus, Infiniti, etc.
Coining a new word makes the mark stronger, because it begins its life innately attached to the company/product; and nothing else, as opposed to, say, "Bob's Garage."
Standard Oil even went to considerable trouble and expense to make sure their Exxon mark didn't have negative conotations anywhere in the world.
If you look down you'll find that Hormel is actually being rather reasonable about the whole thing, given the situation. They're defending their mark, as they must if they don't wish to loose it, but they really just aren't being dickheads about it. They accept that their mark, a word they invented just to be associated with their product, now has a new and second meaning.
But their concerns that in future people might wonder why they named their potted meat product after junk email are perfectly valid.
KFG
Give Hormel a break (Score:5, Insightful)
Time wasting issues like this are why... (Score:3, Insightful)
How about CAN-SPAM (Score:3, Insightful)
Hormel have lost (Score:3, Insightful)
Can't have it both ways.
I've been targeted for a trademark dispute. Funny thing was the MIDI Manufacturers Association didn't own the trademark they said I breached.
Take this posturing with a pinch of salt, they have nothing and it is common practice for companies to try it on.
Re:You're stupid then (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Lets see... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Give Hormel a break (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? What's with all these glass-filled holes in my wall then?
You misinterpreted the data (Score:5, Insightful)
Fat runs around 170 calories per ounce (vs. something like 60 cal/oz for meat).
So if a 2-ounce serving contains 140 cal. from fat, that means the product is around 20% fat.
Which is about the same as ordinary hamburger.
As to changes over the years, pork itself has become a fairly lean meat, so there is less fat in the average processed pig than there was 30 years ago. But the canning process is rather finicky about what can be in the can and still come out at the desired texture, so it's more likely changes in your tastes with maturity that make it seem different. Lots of kids think many things are gross that these same kids gobble wholeheartedly as adults.
Re:Eeeeewwwww! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Duh (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Important question: Why was the term popular? (Score:3, Insightful)
As for the meat, we used to get it for lunch at a school in Hawaii back in the 70's, which I think constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. However, if you cook it properly it can be OK. You just need to use a method that renders most of the fat out of it, and then discard the fat. They didn't do that in Hawaii heh heh. At least not at my school. Normally I'd say keep that pork fat around for other things, but spam fat is downright nasty IMHO.
Re:Eeeeewwwww! (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you eat hot dogs? What's your understanding of those?
Aren't trademarks... (Score:3, Insightful)
Meaning, all the companies making anti-spam products are NOT in the food industry. They're in the tech industry.