SPAM, What Would it Have Been Called if,.....

So...we should forward all these S**M posts to Hormel.com?

That is not a bad idea..... an SPAM archive...... make them pay.

Hormel can put that as an exhibit to their SPAM museum....

Have to register and patent that idea..... you know,.... just in case.

How do we know that the attorneys didn't wind up in the product? Some might say it's a fitting end for them.

Well, that would be a lot of product... and complaints would com in such as...

"Hey,.... lately, this SPAM tastes like $#!t"

No-no-no. Hormel would NEVER put all that BS in their product. Meat like parts we don't recognize or ever eat, unless we are British, but never a load of BS.

Kulas?

I think he has a very valid point.

Seems to me to meet all the requirements.

Then, I think mental illness is contagious...I have to put you in quarantine.... or is that solitary confinement,..... I get the two mix up sometimes..

This Lyn guy got the worst and his friends too.

Now, if I was going to challenge or put down a member here, I'd let him know where its coming from.

Be gone!

It was doomed to failure, as the usage in a computer context has no relevance or bearing on the food stuff product.

Were it another foodstuff being marketed under that name, they would have had a case.

Some product names do transfer and become useful in other areas, but they are usually allied in some way.

Hormel was ill advised... probably by lawyers...

And in any case you can't litigate against common usage... I expect Bosch get intensely irritated by people wanting to buy a Bosch "Hoover", because it's quieter than their "Dyson Hoover"

Del

I'm not an attorney,....

As I understand it, if Hormel's corporate attorney's reacted faster when the term 'SPAM' were first started to be used as 'unsolicited electronic correspondence', their case would have been stronger. With the defense of protected the name 'SPAM' and its product.

And because of it, it is now common usage.

That is why the courts threw it out, on the basis Hormel did not defend the term 'SPAM' when it was initially being to describe 'unsolicited electronic correspondence'.

And also why Hormel's attorneys were terminated because they did not initially see the threat.

The term/word 'SPAM' was invented by Hormel. You don't protect it,.... you lose it....

Yeah, being lawyers they were probably confident that computers would never catch on

Del

Surreptitiously Processed Artificial Meat?

Mail! Not meat! Its Spam after all!

We know it's not meat!

fRom Right to Left --> Fredski, Ideasmith, Lyn and Tornado. Yikes..Spooky

Learn how to spell Peev.

I thought it meant sales, promotional, advertising mail....so it's just another acronym that has become a word...not a word coined for unwanted mail...you have no case sir...

ps: the 'break room' is listed at the bottom of the 'users group directory'...

As someone who works closely with marketing I think that regardless of the negative connotations online the word SPAM invokes it is getting massive amounts of free publicity in all target markets (ie-those online) and it wont stop any time soon.

Hormel should be embracing this and redesigning their marketing campaign to take advantage in this endless publicity as the one, the only, the original 'SPAM!!!!'.

Brand recognition is one thing but if you don't adapt to the changing market you are doomed, and targeting people for name infringement in this case is like trying to close the barn door after the horse has bolted, run off into the fields, lived a long happy life, died, got made into glue and they then tried to sue the glue factory.

Idiots. No chance of winning and even if they did the publicity is all negative damaging their own company image.

embracing it,....?

In my opinion, That's BS,

Spam was a very good staple when it was developed, even though it was made fun of as mystery meat. As far as advertising... Hormel 'SPAM' does not need advertising as much as SPAM Arrest needed the name recognition.

After everything is said, Hormel's attorneys were caught napping.

I recall a up and coming band tried to use that 'free advertising' defense when they ripped off a diddy from the Rolling Stones, and Keith Richards (who the industry says is quite business savvy, hard to believe) said, "Advertise for Rolling Stones whose been around for over 40 years" and laughed, and said pay up.

Like an empty pantry where the only ingredient left is SPAM, you make do with what you have.

There are differences in your example and mine. I am reminded of Donald Trump trying to copyright (or whatever he was trying to do) the phrase 'four fired', or Apple trying to copyright the cellphone shape of a rectangle with slightly rounded corners. The all are flawed when impartially viewed and a reality check is applied.

In the end what's done is done and SPAM will forever be known primarily by its online connection due to its massive continuing exposure world wide.

In my opinion of course.

Well, not in Hawaii, I believe Hawaiians made SPAM their state bird. And its on their state flag too,.... I think...

This is starting to veer into politics, so I'll just state the facts and leave it at that:

Prior to announcing his canidacy, Trump has the words "Trumpicrat" and "Trumpublican" both trademarked. The trademark protection on both has expired (either he did not pay the renewal fee, or he APPLIED for trademark protection, but never paid the filing fee. Don't know the details, don't care.), but he was looking at protecting both those terms for some reason.

This is more common than you may realise. A colleague of mine in NZ got into a battle with Richard Branson's company Virgin because he started up and registered a marketing company name which included the word virgin in it. Apparently Richard had copyrighted a huge number of possible company name combinations which included virgin in it regardless of if they were related to his existing business's or not.

Just keeping his options open I guess.

So Branson's trying to keep all the 'Virgins' for himself eh?

Ohh, that went to a weird place really fast, I'll shut up now.

His little black book with all the Virgin company name combinations was not that little I am told. It wasn't just a few dozen pages listing name combinations, I was told it made the dictionary look small.

How about GAMF? (GArbage Mail Flood) (LOL) S.M.

Nope! Taken already!

And George would be unhappy too!

I thought the purpose of a lawsuit was to recover a loss (i.e., "to be made whole") and the purpose of a copyright was to protect an investment in a brand name. I can't see how Hormel was harmed in any way by the term SPAM. It's not a competitive product trying to cash in on their investment in their brand name. It's just a term for junk emails. Nobody will mistake the two terms and nobody will suddenly think bad things about their product as a result of the term.

Of course, I'm no lawyer.

By the way, fried Spam with a little catsup on the side is a pretty tasty lunch! You can eat it with bread or not.

A group of Boy scouts, who's nationality will remain anonymous, have filed a class action lawsuit against Hormel and the internet, due to injuries sustained by heating a can of Spam over a campfire. The scout's attorney's contended that there are no clear instructions stating the can must be opened, or that heating while in the can is not recommended. The law firm of Dewey, Cheatem and How, formerly on retainer with Hormel, will be representing the scout troop.

Name Brand carry's a lot of weight, and example is the recent law suit with Michael Jordan who won because of name use.

And the grocery store chain (who is now defunct) who used it never played basketball.

Was Michael Jordan harmed,.... evidently he was, by $8.9 Million dollars worth.

Again, the value, is name recognition.

There is a subtle difference, since apparently Michael Jordan owns a steak house down the street and the store had tried to put his name on their steaks. The obvious implication being that he had endorsed their steaks and that the quality was comparable to the steaks served in his restaurant. He would have probably demanded (and been entitled to) pretty significant compensation if they had asked for his permission to use his name.

That may sound good, but the defense Michael Jordan took is that he is very particular on who uses his name. And the reason why, is that he put a high value on his name. It had nothing to do with competition.

Adding that there is a difference between a steakhouse and a grocery store.

Also, the store has since gone bankrupt, of which there may be nothing to gain, so I'm thinking he may have pursued it to set a precedence to future lawsuits that is using unlawfully his name.

His name is certainly worth a lot! I'm sure Nike paid him pretty well for the Air Jordan brand.

Yes, considering NIKE does not want that information to get out on his new contract.

This is something about Jordan,.... his last game he played was over 20 years ago,.... even though he did come out of retirement briefly in 1995 and played again.

And I believe the reason for Jordan's name recognition and the value it holds today, is that he protected his name.

People make fun of SPAM, but it too has longevity.

And as far as the 'free advertising' from a few posts back, just because it may not hurt the product, they should still protect it.

A famous name is certainly worth a lot and that brings up a question. I'm sure there are others with the same name, namely Michael Jordan. Suppose someone with the legal name "Michael Jordan" opens a business and names it after himself. Would that be cause for legal action?

I think McDonalds had something like that with a smaller Mom and Pop restaurant, even had the Golden Arches... if I remember correctly, McDonalds (Corporate) offered to buy out the older restaurant, which he refused,.... so then they decided to crush him.

I have to search that out now and verify it.

I don't think the other restaurant had the arches, just Mac Donald's as part of its name.

If memory serves, McDonald's Corp sued, claiming that they 'owned' the name, even though the small restaurant was using the name before the fast-food chain was born.

The Keeper of the Tartan for Clan Mac Donald filed a suit contesting McDonald's claim of 'ownership' of the name. And a minor Scottish Lord, one Ronald Mac Donald sued for Defamation of Character, claiming the fast-food chain was portraying him as a silly clown.

It was something like that, I recall that Mac Donald or Mc Donald, Mc or Mac meaning is 'Son of' Donald.

Yes, that's it, and the Mc's and Mac's are from the same root in Scottish, so the split started as just a regional accent, like the people who say 'Nawlens' and the people who say 'New Orleans,' or whether or not to say the s in Illinois.

That's interesting... What if the mom & pop McDonald's restaurant had a copyright on the name first?

Similarly, what if some old guy named Michael Jordan had started up a business making "Michael Jordan's Famous Fishing Rods" long before the famous Michael Jordan ever set foot on a basketball court?

I suspect this sort of thing has happened hundreds of times.

Then its proof that is required.

You just opened a can of worms..... so I'm going to have to stop....

That's interesting... What if the mom & pop McDonald's restaurant had a copyright on the name first?

Then McDonald's would have purchased it when they were starting up after a copyright search picked it up. Something my colleague SHOULD have done before starting his company Virgin xxxxxxxx.

About 15 or so years ago there was a news story about the Scottish McDonald clan going after McDonald's for name infringement or something, but that was just coincidence which is bound to happen on such a big world we live on. Prior art as it were. Oops, didn't see the above post.

That's fine for McDonalds, but what about the Michael Jordan example?

I guess he could contact the fishing rod guy and work out some sort of deal, but I can't see how the old guy would be legally obligated to change the name of his business.

Just from the information given in post #30 it seems like the store was in the wrong as they were knowingly trying to use his name to promote their business without authorisation or paying for it and Michael Jordan had every right to go after them.

Pretty clear cut to me.

Oh right! I agree.

I was referring to my hypothetical example in #39, where a business was making "Michael Jordan Famous Fishing Rods" long before the other Michael Jordan became famous.

I am not sure what American law says on the subject, but the law would probably favour the original business unless they tried to modify their marketing to take advantage of Michael Jordan the basketball player.

Yez, ja junge, they have, but itz a zhoe

Back to the subject of the discussion.

The other "what the heck is it?" meat product could have been used as a name. Scrapple. Been eating it since a tyke, as I grew up in a Pa Dutch household and that was a breakfast staple. However, having been to butchering time on the farm, I know you NEVER want to ask what is in it.

On the farm, we had a cow go down (still alive), couldn't get up, so before the meat went bad by bruising itself, we shipped it to market, hope to get the best out of it.... We called the trucker and as we were loading it on the truck, I had looked at the records and said, she's with calf, about 2 months out.

The trucker said, don't worry, it won't go to waste, it's all 'SPAM'.

Now, we had SPAM occasionally when I was growing up on the farm. I never minded the taste of spam, but my dad hated it.

"as we were loading it on the truck, I had looked at the records and said, she's with calf, about 2 months out.

The trucker said, don't worry, it won't go to waste, it's all 'SPAM'."

Don't let the Right-To-Lifers hear that story, they'll claim you should have let the cow suffer and bruise up its meat, instead of sending it off to have its calf Aborted. Never mind that had it been a boy, it probably would have been slaughtered for veal. Or that the cow probably wouldn't have survived for two months unable to stand. Logic plays second fiddle to 'principles' with those guys.

Reminds me of a story I shared here a while back....

"However, having been to butchering time on the farm, I know you NEVER want to ask what is in it."

The name alone makes me think of scraps scraped together to make some cr** that only the Really Hungry would eat. It feels like someone's fancy name for 'leftovers.'

Hot Dogs, Baloney just to name a few....

But how about Blood sausage, and head cheese... people just love this.....

or some milder foods like Belgium Tripe. There's a Belgium settlement near where I live..... anout (40-50 miles away)

I myself, I love Liverwurst (Braunschweiger) myself,..... on white or rye bread with butter and raw onions..

Not to mention Cannibal sandwiches on Rye Bread.... with raw onions and a little seasoning.

I just ate, and now I'm hungry.

How did I every live through that.....

The thing to remember here, is panhaas (scrapple) came from the Pa. Dutch, which are really German immigrants, and many of them were dirt poor farmers. Being one of them, I can tell you that the older "Dutchmen" are the most conservative lot you'll ever meet. If something comes from an animal and it can be eaten - it will be eaten. We make fun of the strange parts the British use to make meals, but they haven't a thing on the old Pa. Dutchmen. Stuffed hog stomach used to be the proper meal for us after the Kraut on New Years day. And don't forget that the real sausage we made was stuffed hog intestines. Spam never sounded yucky to us. We had panhaas well before Spam was first canned.

If something comes from an animal and it can be eaten - it will be eaten.

Reminds me of a Gary Larson cartoon...

Casu Marzo from Italy, creeeeamy!

Have been a designer of dairy process equipment..... that's not new to me.... not to mention raise on a dairy farm that included apple and cherry orchards.... what else you got.