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 (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Spam (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Spam (Score:4, Interesting)
Curiously, this is very similar to the way Hawaians use spam with poi, which is a starchy tuber that's is cooked into a porridge like consistency.
In any case, there's a big cultural difference between the way the Ameicans (well, haole Americans) use meat and the way the Chinese do. In American cuisine meat is the meal, and other stuff just goes around it to complement. You have a meal of burgers, and have your corn on the cob on the side. In Chinese cuisine, meat is used as a flavoring, like we use catsup. It's not that the don't have dishes that are primarily meat, but these are typically eaten as a course. Regular day to day meals do not center around meat.
Spam fits into this mode of meat eating better than the American mode. From a culinary standpoint, Spam as the centerpiece of a meal has the following faults:
(1) It's too spicy
(2) It's too salty
(3) It's too fatty
(4) It has an insipid texture.
Of course the first point is debatable, but most people who like "spicy" food like capsium based hotness. It's been a while since I've had Spam, but I remember it has rather clove-y, possibly with mace or some other aromatic seed spice. After you've eaten a quarter pound of the stuff, I'd think you'd get pretty sick of it.
None of these objections apply to Spam as a flavoring. In fact you can say pretty much all of them about anchovies, but very few people except for fish nuts like me eat anchovies right out of the can.
Re:Spam (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Spam (Score:3, Interesting)
You can eat it cold if you must, or heat over the fire, it is calorie dense, tastes reasonably good, stores well, and I just eat the cans that are left over in the spring as sandwiches (sliced in thirds and lightly browned in a skillet) so my "rations" are never more th
Re:Spam (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:Eeeeewwwww! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Eeeeewwwww! (Score:2)
"Spah! Not more Viagra email".
Sorry. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sorry. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Sorry. (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Important question: Why was the term popular? (Score:4, Interesting)
I think that in this case, "pretty well established" is probably a correct term, but I also think it is a mistake.
The question is not why unwanted email was originally named "spam". The question is why the term was immediately adopted and enthusiastically used by so many people.
The people who named it "spam" and the people who adopted the term so easily and with such popularity were probably older people, not teenagers or people in their early twenties. I say that because I believe the formula for Hormel Foods SPAM has changed. I tried SPAM in the 50's. Even as a child I was disgusted by the fat in SPAM then. So, when I first heard the word "spam" associated with unwanted email, I completely understood and agreed wtih the reference.
If unwanted email had been named "foot stomp", I might have recognized the reference to the Monty Python TV show, but I would not have adopted the term myself.
I remember trying a bite of Hormel Foods SPAM several years ago, and I was surprised that it was not disgusting. That's why I think that the formula was changed.
Someone, please look on a can of Hormel Foods SPAM and post a comment with the total calories per serving and the number of fat calories per serviing.
Funny official statement from Hormel Foods [spam.com] : Let's face it. Today's teens and young adults are more computer savvy than ever, and the next generations will be even more so. Children will be exposed to the slang term "spam" to describe UCE well before being exposed to our famous product SPAM. Ultimately, we are trying to avoid the day when the consuming public asks, "Why would Hormel Foods name its product after junk e-mail?"
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"
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:Important question: Why was the term popular? (Score:2)
btw i consider a 200g can of spam to be one serving what do other people here think?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Important question: Why was the term popular? (Score:2, Interesting)
But it was delicious.
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 aroun
Re:Eeeeewwwww! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Eeeeewwwww! (Score:2)
Not sure if it is supposed to be a breakfast food, but that's primarily how it was served (on bread). Semi-tasty stuff when you are younger with a stomache of iron.
Now, it's just too greasy for me, but that doesn't say I won't touch it again. (Just fairly rare to eat it now)
Funny observation (Score:2)
Funny observation from a link [topsecretrecipes.com] in a comment below:
"Does Spam taste corpsy? Of course it tastes corpsy -- it's meat. We're just arguing about the identity of the deceased."
Also: "... the name Spam is derived from the words "spicy ham,
It seems to me that islanders liked Hormel SPAM because it was the cheapest form of meat product and because they accepted high fat food because they ate coconut.
Re:Eeeeewwwww! (Score:2)
I thought junk email got named spam because it's always filling up your mailbox, just like spam the meat product. (you guys do have large quantities of processed meat products put in your mailbox daily, don't you?)
I think SPAM is actually pretty good if you fry the hell out of it and then throw it on an English muffin with cheese and a fried egg. I call this the "aorta-buster
Re:Eeeeewwwww! (Score:2)
Re:Eeeeewwwww! (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you eat hot dogs? What's your understanding of those?
Re:Spam (Score:3, Interesting)
I've heard of a spam variation on this gastrointestinal atrocity^W delight [whatscookingamerica.net], which is still better than balut, I suppose...
Re:Spam (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Spam (Score:2)
Re:Spam (Score:5, Funny)
It's a lot like Discworld dwarven bread.
Funny. (Score:2)
Re:Spam (Score:2, Funny)
Dwarf bread, just like mother used to hew...
Re:Spam (Score:2)
its not too bad but i think i'd get sick of it if i ate it all the time.
Sounds like (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re:Tough case (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Tough case (Score:5, Funny)
Shhh! You're giving away the recipe!
Re:Tough case (Score:2)
Yeah, I've felt a little bad for Hormel with the association. But I've never associated or heard other people associate SPAM with a quality product. I've only eaten it once when camping when I was in 6th grade. Honestly, I don't remember it being bad. For me, the only caned meat products that I eat is tuna.
Also, if they are going to the US government for help in this matter, maybe they
Re:Tough case (Score:2)
Just cook it like you would bacon or a hamburger... IT will brown like bacon.
Once you get the outer slab nice and crisp, its damn tasty.
Defend the mark or lose it (Score:2)
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:You're stupid then (Score:2)
Bulk email was called spam by geeks.
Geeks are fans of Monty Python.
Python referenced spam in a lot of skits.
Hormel are getting a lot of free awareness of their product.
This lawsuit further raises the visibility of spam.
Go, convergence of legal system and advertising!
How about some suggesting alternative names?
'Potted electronic mail product', for example.
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:You're stupid then (Score:2)
Re:You're stupid then (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You're stupid then (Score:2)
Where would Slashdot be without you, Anonymous Coward?
Re:Duh (Score:2)
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...
Re:Lets see... (Score:5, Interesting)
Eh, but it worked against kleenex so who knows.
Re:Lets see... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Lets see... (Score:2)
Re:Lets see... (Score:2)
Re:Lets see... (Score:2)
Re:Lets see... (Score:2)
Well, the Jargon File [catb.org] says "from Monty Python's Flying Circus". The American Heritage Dictionary says "probably inspired by a comedy routine on the British television series Monty Python's Flying Circus, in which the word is repeated incessantly."
So this seems pretty accepted; perhaps not legally proven though.
Re:Lets see... (Score:3, Funny)
Miscategorized Article? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Miscategorized Article? (Score:2)
Re:Miscategorized Article? (Score:5, Funny)
SPAM vs spam (Score:5, Informative)
'DSPAM', as a company name, would seem to be a perfect example of what Hormel has *not* tolerated...
Re:SPAM vs spam (Score:4, Informative)
Quick Google search found Hormel's "SPAM and the Internet" [spam.com] page.
Re:SPAM vs spam (Score:2)
Re:SPAM vs spam (Score:2)
Which is probably what will happen. So they have to reprint their letterhead - big deal, everybody knows about the case-dependent license from Hormel, and if they didn't they have no business being in the spam industry. They are blatantly violating Hormel's terms and need to fix it.
Now, the Congress recently passed a CAN-SPAM bill, bec
Re:SPAM vs spam (Score:2)
Both Frisbee and Hula Hoop are still registered trademarks belonging to their respective owners. Perhaps you meant formica and xerography?
Re:SPAM vs spam (Score:2)
Re:SPAM vs spam (Score:2)
SPAM is a meat byproduct. Spam is Unsolicted Commercial Email.
As has been pointed out numerous times - it's hard to confuse the two concepts.
Trademarks (Score:4, Informative)
Of course, IANAL, so correct me if I'm wrong...
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
Re:Trademarks (Score:3, Interesting)
We do not object to use of this slang term to describe UCE.
But OTOH, they say
Ultimately, we are trying to avoid the day when the consuming public asks, "Why would Hormel Foods name its product after junk e-mail?"
Which kind of conflicts with the former quote. Everyone knows about spam-email. Everyone has to deal with it. Seems to me they're fighting a lost case, and they know it.
Re:Trademarks (Score:2)
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.
Their official stance (Score:5, Informative)
from: http://spam.com/ci/ci_in.htm [spam.com]
Also, from their Legal and Copyright page:
Oh, as if! (Score:2)
As if they could stop its use as a slang term, or as if that's even a legal action for a company or court to undertake. Trademarks are about advertising, or reference to a product. No one can stop you from merely reusing the words of a trademark.
Companies that get bent out of
If Hormel wants... (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Spam, Velveeta and onions (Score:2, Interesting)
1 small onion
1 can Spam
2 inches cut from the end of a block of Velveeta
Peel the onion and chop it in a food processor. Add the Velveeta and chop for a short burst. Then add the Spam and chop only long enough to blend the results -- you're don't want to turn it into a paste, you want to leave the Spam somewhat chunky.
Spread the resul
Re:Spam, Velveeta and onions (Score:3, Funny)
Cheese? I see no cheese in this recipe!?
Re:Spam, Velveeta and onions (Score:2)
Give Hormel a break (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Give Hormel a break (Score:3, Interesting)
The whole thing has brought a lot of attention to their canned meat product, and as another poster mentioned, they may actually be doing this as much from a marketing standpoint as for real trademark protection.
They've certainly started pushing the product more over the past couple years-- a few years ago I went to reach for the tuna in my local grocery, and the shelf of chunk white had been replaced by SPAM in all varieties, with the tuna moved below it
Re:Give Hormel a break (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? What's with all these glass-filled holes in my wall then?
Re:Give Hormel a break (Score:2)
Re:Give Hormel a break-remember Mike Rowe? (Score:2)
Fight spammers (Score:2)
Time wasting issues like this are why... (Score:3, Insightful)
Oops, I now repost my post minus bad English... (Score:2)
How about CAN-SPAM (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How about CAN-SPAM (Score:2)
I can just see it now. Get your CAN-SPAM(TM) act here, fresh from the chamber, it's luuuverly....
Meanwhile, in China.... (Score:2, Funny)
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:Hormel have lost (Score:2)
Under trademark law, this is fine and legal as your product is not in the operating system market.
I don't understand... (Score:2)
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.
SPAM! (Score:2, Interesting)
SPAM stands for Specially Processed Assorted Meat, the acronym chosen during the world wars when the original name was not popular enough.
The internet 'SPAM' as in unwanted content came from the Monty Python skit where they repeated 'spamspamspam' ad infinum, and generally annoyed everyone. You see the relevance?
They are required to do this (Score:3, Informative)
It's a goddamn free project..! (Score:2)
Cripes. What a complete waste of money. It's not like you need the name-branding. Look at the Thunderbird/etc people. They changed their names how many times and they're still ridiculously popular!
Interesting Hormel Story (Score:4, Interesting)
I ran the site for maybe a year before I received my first C&D letter from Hormel. I replied back telling them I was not attempting to compete and was not dilluting their mark. Basically a nice, "Go to hell, Hormel!"
There were one or two more letters back and forth between Hormel and myself. When I registered the domain you still didn't have to pay for a registration. When Hormel decided they wanted it back you had to pay $100 for two years to InterNIC. I wanted Hormel to at least buy me a new domain since they were starting to threaten litigation if I didn't hand over spam.net (I was 20 at the time, litigation by a LARGE corporation didn't sound like a walk in the park).
Some months later I received a letter from WIPO [wipo.int] telling me that Hormel had filed a petition against me and they decided the case was vague enough that they wouldn't give Hormel the name, but I couldn't use it either. InterNIC put the domain name on hold until Hormel and I could sort it out amongst ourselves.
Hormel contacted me once against asking for the name and I told them if I couldn't have it, they couldn't either. I was happy to leave it on hold so NEITHER of us could use it (scorched earth mentality baby!).
They just went away.
I would check on the name from time to time to see if it was still on hold. About 2 months before the payment was due (InterNIC required payment for on hold domains, damn their then-monopoly) I checked on the domain name. I was registered to Hormel, lock stock and barrel!
My plan had been to pay the registration feel just to keep the name tied up, but somehow - and without anyone notifying me - they managed to get the name transfered to them and taken off hold.
At no point had I ever agreed to transfer the name or provided anything in writing that said anything remotely close to it. But there it was, big as day, off hold and in the hands of Hormel.
I've been a little bitter about it ever since.
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.
Re:The Department of Redundancy Department (Score:2)
Re:Isn't going to work (Score:4, Informative)
Re:SPAM is yummy. (Score:2)