Hormel Loses “Spam” Trademark Case Against Anti-Spam Company   - 1,219 Views,

Summary: The original makers of spam - and Aunty does mean the meat..well, alleged meat product - Hormel, have lost a trademark law suit against anti-spam software company "Spambuster". This particular legal case adds several insults to the injury for Hormel. To start with, ...

Previous Article « Court Says Message Board Operators Not Liable for Libel
Read Next Article » Microsoft Offers Windows Lite in Europe

  Follow Anne on Twitter     Friend Anne on Facebook

The original makers of spam - and Aunty does mean the meat..well, alleged meat product - Hormel, have lost a trademark law suit against anti-spam software company “Spambuster”.

This particular legal case adds several insults to the injury for Hormel.

To start with, it is a decision from the hallowed halls of justice in the United Kingdom itself - the country which first gave birth to the SPAM craze (in many ways), and which saw the genesis of the act which was ultimately credited with giving the junk email we all know and don’t love the monicker “spam” - the Monty Python spam skit.

Second, Hormel has long been known in the anti-spam industry as being a sort of benevolent trademark holder. The conventional wisdom was always that so long as you didn’t use the term ’spam’ in all uppercase letters as does Hormel (”SPAM”), and didn’t do anything untoward with the trademark (like, say, take potshots at Hormel or their product), then they would look the other way. And by and large the anti-spam community appreciated their largesse.

A largesse which has, it seems, come back and bitten them on the nose.

Said the authority in the British case, of Hormel’s lawsuit, “The proposition that someone who encounters computer programming services under the mark Spambuster would think any less of the applicants’ luncheon meat product or be discouraged from purchasing that product is more than a little fanciful.”

I dunno. Trademark law also turns on whether the claimed infringing use of the mark is likely to cause confusion in the eyes of the consuming public. Given that a large percentage of your country’s population seems to confuse SPAM with edible food, Aunty isn’t so sure that the public won’t be similarly confused into thinking that “Spambuster” might be a product designed to compete with SPAM, or a new tin opener or specially designed SPAM knife.

But seriously, Hormel, at least we on this side of the pond appreciate you, even if we don’t appreciate that alleged meat.

Hormel Loses “Spam” Trademark Case Against Anti-Spam Company

 Follow Anne on Twitter

 Twitter Explained in Plain English

 Friend Anne on Facebook

Previous Article « Court Says Message Board Operators Not Liable for Libel
Read Next Article » Microsoft Offers Windows Lite in Europe

Read more:

»  Hormel Ready to Take Back the Spam

»  Hormel Loses Law Case Over the Word “Spam”

»  Aunty Spam: Frying Phish

»  Revenge of the Spoofed! Trademark Your Domain! Here’s How!

For additional similar stories check out our archives on Internet Law

NOTE: We never, ever, ever will recommend any product or service on this site that we have not regularly used ourselves and do not wholeheartedly believe in. That said, in some cases after being very pleased with a product or service, we may enter into a relationship with the provider of that product or service such that if someone purchases that product or service based on our recommendation, we may get a small payment. Such payments go towards the upkeep of the Internet Patrol.

 

No Comments »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

Warning! All comments which contain URLs and are clearly just spam to generate a link back to the URL will be deleted on sight. Don't bother wasting your time!

If you are going to include a URL in your comment,
please keep it under 25 characters in length,
or use TinyURL to shorten it before including it in your comment.

Line and paragraph breaks are automatic, your email address is never displayed.
HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

(required)

(required)


If you have not posted a comment here before, we apologize for having to ask you to enter the letters and numbers you see in the image above to validate your comment, but we are being attacked by thousands of comment form spams every day! You only need to do this once; once you have successfuly posted a comment here you will not be asked to do this again. Thank you for your understanding!

 
 This article first appeared on 2/2/2005
The Internet Patrol
Patrolling the Internet for You!