Once Again, Hormel's Trademark On Spam Does Not Apply To Email

from the meat-like-substance dept

Fri, Nov 30th 2007 1:15pm — Mike Masnick

I thought we had gone through this a few years ago when Hormel lost a trademark lawsuit against an anti-spam company. Hormel, of course, is the maker of SPAM, the meat-like substance. It's had something of a love-hate affair with the use of the word "spam" for email, originally hating it, but later growing to kind of accept it. However, every once in a while it throws up a random trademark lawsuit. Once again, though, a judge has ruled that Hormel's trademark "does not extend to computer software for filtering spam." One would have thought that was obvious from way back when, and especially after it started losing cases on that point -- but, apparently it just couldn't resist the salty taste of yet another failed lawsuit.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: spam, trademarks
Companies: hormel, spam arrest

21 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

shanoboy (profile), 30 Nov 2007 @ 1:25pm

Next thing you know Google will be trying to sue people for using the term "Googling".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jackoknight, 30 Nov 2007 @ 1:27pm

Mmm spam
This is like the second weird thing I saw on the web today. The other is that Ebay is selling the answer to the question "what is the meaning of life".

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=260188815381
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Nov 2007 @ 2:12pm

Re: Mmm spam
The answer is 42, everyone knows that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
GeneralEmergency (profile), 30 Nov 2007 @ 2:41pm

"Meat-like substance"?? C'mon Mike...
Ahh...Flexing our culinary snobbery muscles, are we Mike??

Love the Spam(TM).

C'mon everyone, post your favorite Spam(TM) recipes for Mike to try out!

I'll start:

PIG COOKIES
Slice Spam(TM) 1/8th inch thick. Lay on bed of paper towels. Microwave to death (Crisp and Brown). Allow to cool. If they are still chewey, cook longer.

Alan
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rich Kulawiec, 30 Nov 2007 @ 2:47pm

(1) spam vs SPAM and (2) Spam Arrest
1. This is why the slang term "spam" (which is usually used in place of the canonical definition, "unsolicited bulk email") is never spelled "SPAM": it's not an acronym. Hormel have been very good about this over the years, considering that we co-opted the name of one of their products.
2. Spam Arrest are....wait for it...spammers. That's right, a supposedly anti-spam company that has spammed to promote its products. They therefore join spamstrike, and spamfighter, and fortinet, and others who have no problem making the spam problem worse...as long as they profit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Techomage, 30 Nov 2007 @ 3:31pm

Re: Re: Mmm spam
Um, I think you're wrong about that. 42 was the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything. The question was what do you get when you multiple 6 by 7.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jesse, 30 Nov 2007 @ 4:04pm

Re: Re: Re: Mmm spam
No no, the question was "What do you get when you multiply 6 by 9?". Which actually works out in Base-13.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Shun, 30 Nov 2007 @ 4:51pm

Does Hormel need a Kleenex or a Band-Aid?
Face it. Spam has entered the American Lexicon as a generic. There is no such thing as just "SPAM" -- the stuff that Hormel makes. You now have to distinguish between unsolicited e-mail and canned meat.

Usually, you can tell what a person is talking about by the context of his/her sentence. Of course, if you are Hormel, or Hormel's lawyers, you do not have this gift of common sense.

My advice to Hormel is: use the word to promote your products. Instead of hating, embrace. Stick to what you're good at. Fire your current crop of lawyers, while you're at it. They obviously know nothing about trademark law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Brian Hayes, 30 Nov 2007 @ 5:00pm

Between a rock and the Bench
I agree entirely that both stupid and capricious lawsuits are too common. Techdirt's reporting and its commentary are superbly keeping us informed and warning us to be alert.

Yet to own property under our law, we must show we own it and that we are maintaining our ownership. Unless we have a record showing we want to keep our property, it's easy to lose it. This applies to providing a shortcut over our property that might become public and applies to intellectual property.

Hormel's lawsuit that seeks to retrieve rights is also a legal record of the effort to keep rights. Are there other methods that stop dilution?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
niftyswell, 30 Nov 2007 @ 5:03pm

that would be a great commercial
I could imagine a great commercial where people are looking at their PC's and saying - SPAM! at first it looks like they are upset and then when the camera pans around it shows a youtube video of a can of spam being opened and served and then it shows that the people looking at the pc are actually salivating over it.

It ties in the modern negative association and counters it with a positive older association.

I like spam...the oven roasted turkey spam is the best!

what do you think?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Paul`, 30 Nov 2007 @ 5:11pm

Re: Mmm spam
Its 42, everyone knows that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Paul`, 30 Nov 2007 @ 5:12pm

Re: Mmm spam
Its 42, everyone knows that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
rEdEyEz, 30 Nov 2007 @ 6:53pm

Unsavory...
...is it the meat product or the e-mail?

If it's the meat product, waterboard, fire, and sue the "dickens-out-of" your chefs. How can a meat product be unsavory?

Case closed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
skyrider, 1 Dec 2007 @ 8:13am

SPAM is an acronym
Scientifically Produced Animal Matter - Produced when a bunch of road kills are placed at the target end of a linear accelerator.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JustMe, 1 Dec 2007 @ 12:19pm

Re: Meaning of life
WTH? The seller has zero feedback. I think someone is gonna loose a few bucks on this painfully obvious scam.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matthew Stianr, 1 Dec 2007 @ 4:05pm

Re: Between a rock and the Bench
Yes, US trademark law states that if you don't defend your trademark you will lose it. I believe what they were really trying to prevent was some company selling canned meat from defending their use of the name Spam by arguing that Hormel never sued anybody else for using the name. This way, they could show the judge that they had been protecting their trademark and the judge would rule in their favor because the Spam trademark applies to canned meat.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Dec 2007 @ 8:54pm

Like it or not, SPAM is meat, not a "meat-like substance".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
john duncan yoyo, 2 Dec 2007 @ 12:27am

Re: Re: Mmm spam
The ultimate answer is 42 but the ultimate question was what is 6 times 9.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JimW, 2 Dec 2007 @ 9:23am

Re: Re: Mmm spam
"What is 6 times 9?" is the question which resulted from the Golgafrincham's interference with the program. The real question remains a mystery. GIGO
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Boris Jacobsen, 2 Dec 2007 @ 8:42pm

6 x 9 = 42
6 x 9 = 42

I suspect Douglas Adams was merely expressing a preference for base 13, in which the above equation is true.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Celes, 3 Dec 2007 @ 6:54pm

Re: Re: Re: Mmm spam
Thank you! I haven't read the books in so many years that I forgot why that may not have been the real question.
[ link to this | view in thread ]