Chick-fil-A Says 'Eat More Kale' Slogan Infringes On Its 'Eat Mor Chikin'
from the morons-in-a-hurry-don't-eat-chicken? dept
I have a friend who is obsessed with the fast food restaurant Chick-fil-A. Many years ago, he made me travel nearly two hours once just to get lunch there (the nearest one to the Bay Area is way outside of town on the way to Sacramento). Given all the talk about it, I expected it to be quite an amazing restaurant. I wasn't prepared for it to be a dingy mall fast-food/food court place. They make a decent chicken sandwich, but it's hardly worth going out of your way. Either way, I definitely won't be going out of my way for Chick-fil-A again, because I try not to patronize businesses that are insufferable intellectual property bullies. As a whole bunch of you have been submitting, the fast food restaurant has threatened a Vermont Artist for using the phrase "Eat More Kale." Chick-fil-A pretty clearly does not do a brisk business in kale. In fact, I'm pretty sure no kale has ever entered a Chick-fil-A kitchen. However, Chick-fil-A has an ongoing marketing campaign, involving cows urging people to "eat mor chikin." It has somehow decided that any version of "eat more" is too close and that morons in a hurry would be confused.I'd really like Chick-fil-A to point out the moron in a hurry who would see "eat more kale" and suddenly get confused into biting into a clucking bird instead.
Now, it is worth noting that the artist, Bo Muller-Moore, may have brought this partially upon himself by applying for a trademark himself on the "eat more kale" slogan -- which is likely what prompted Chick-fil-A to send the letter opposing the trademark and challenging the phrase. This is what happens when we battle over who can try to lock up the English language. Either way, Chick-fil-A looks like a world class trademark bully, clearly overstepping the powers given to it under trademark law. "Eat mor chikin" is trademarkable not because of the phrase "eat more" but for the full phrase, including the misspellings. Pretending that any version of "eat more" is a trademark violation is simply an attempt to expand the trademark well beyond what is reasonable.
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: bo mueller-moore, bullying, chicken, eat more, kale, trademark
Companies: chick-fil-a
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Own these word Chick-Fil_A, "Eat Me!".
Hershey's has a candy-bar named "Eat More". If Chick-Fil-A decides to pursue this they may be the recipients of a cease-and-desist letter themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Own these word Chick-Fil_A, "Eat Me!".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even if you copy someone else the original probably has enough market share in his own right to survive any attempt of being used by others who probably will confuse it with the original and not the fake one, more even if it is confused and leads to the other guy, he probably is doing a better job and deserve to rip the benefits of that work, more than the guy that just sat on his ass.
The same thing goes for colors, color profiles and so forth, the legal system is just full of hicks apparently that lost the meaning of what is to work hard for something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chick-fil-A exhibits other despicable behavior
http://equalitymatters.org/blog/201103220005
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Chick-fil-A exhibits other despicable behavior
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Chick-fil-A exhibits other despicable behavior
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Chick-fil-A exhibits other despicable behavior
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Chick-fil-A exhibits other despicable behavior
Oh, that's right: in your mind, anyone who points out the failings of another, must HATE all who have similar religious beliefs. Got it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OMG! HAAAATE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Anyway, that bonehead Chick-fil-a guy must not realize that there is prior art that applies to the exact phrase "eat more chicken" since it was used in the song 'Back Door Man' by the Doors from 1967.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Just because it's been used before doesn't mean it cannot be trademarked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Cabbage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ever Notice...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chick-fil-A can "Eat more...
Oh, never mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gross.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They are trained to respond to a "thank you" with "my pleasure"
It was quite amusing to watch them respond without thinking when they walked past the table.
Other than that I wouldn't bother with them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karsh_Kale Heh, not too far off there my anonymous friend.
Nigel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ok, really?
It's a precautionary step taken in this lawsuit-happy world we live in. It's their lawyer-helmet to keep money mongering lawsuit whoring legal thieves from stealing their money.
They haven't sued the dude for any money, they are just covering their bases. And this blog? seriously? Do you even KNOW what bullying is? I doubt it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ok, really?
Opposing the trademark application would be reasonable. Maybe it would not succeed, but that wouldn't really be obnoxious. But they want him to stop making the shirts and turn over his domain. That's into dick move territory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike Masnick is jewish?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike Masnick is jewish?
Wrong type of website.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mike Masnick is jewish?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mike Masnick is jewish?
You should tailor your troll to the audience if you want a good troll rating.
A religious troll here is like going to a cooking website and trying to start a fight about sci fi.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Masnick is jewish?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think we have a new candidate for "Fuckwit of the Year"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Kale-Fil-A
?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blame the system..
If Muller-Moore was trying to register his slogan, then it probably was time to pull out the lawyers. Because, if the registration was successful, the chances that he could sue them and take their slogan grows exponentially.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Blame the system..
I just dealt with a copyright issue this morning that may be related in the thought.
This does not seem to be necessarily a "Threat" but a clear "statement of intent". And it served its purpose. Every one now knows that this artist has been informed that if his trademark is used to confuse, he will be held accountable. Now he can not even claim he did not get a letter :)
That is also why you put what is considered a "valid copyright notice" on your documents even though the document is copy protected without it. To show that you intend to protect your rights if misused.
Unfortunately, often the issue is dealt with badly and the legal system often requires it to look bad (the formal letter of intent) to make it legal. We do not know the preceding of this, but for the benefit of the doubt on Chick-fil-A, they may have had a nice discussion with the guy prior and told him they needed to send a letter, the guy does not like chicken so took the letter to the press. On the other hand, they may not have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Got Guns?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time for a new slogan then...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
kale
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: kale
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: kale
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Law
For example, in the south the work "Coke" is synonymous with
soft drink. Coca-cola used to send people out to restaurants, and whenever the waiter would ask if the person wanted a coke (meaning soft drink in general), Coca Cola would sue. Not because it was an "intellectual property bully" but because that was what was required to secure its brand name.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Law
It's unlikely the copyright holder could prevail in a lawsuit since Chick-Fil-A's use is clearly transformative, not at all a substitute for the Doors' lyrics, and has no impact on the market for the song.
They can only protect the use of the full phrase with their exact misspellings.
I'm not so sure. If you opened a chicken restaurant with the slogan "Eat More Chicken" I don't think it's clear you would win the inevitable trademark lawsuit. In fact I think it would be appropriate for you to lose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gateway (Acer) should sue Chick-fil-A over their use of cows. Heck, TUCOWS should jump in there too, since Gateway got all pissy with them over their use of cows back in '97, but they're still using two cow heads for their logo, so they must be buddy buddy now.
I haven't eaten at a Chick-fil-A in years, but I do love their waffle fries. Pitty...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Chik-fil-A (needs a dictionary).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eat More Kale
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why shouldn't I be able to promote "Eat More Kale"?
http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2011/12/chik-fil-a-and-eat-more-kale-a-pox-on-both-your-h ouses.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Orlando airport taxi and limo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]