• We welcome content that is not political, divisive, or offensive. If we feel your content leans this way or has the potential to, it may be removed at any time. A hot pepper forum is not the place for such content. Thank you for respecting the community!

KFC Trademark Infringement

Not sure if this is the correct part of the forum.....mods feel free it move it if it's not.

I just published an article on THZO and am trying to get it to the widest audience so I'm posting it as many places as I can, here ya go:

KFC Trademark Infringement

We’ve all seen it advertised on T.V. or when you drive by a local Kentucky Fried Chicken. “Smoky Chipotle” Crispy Chicken is now for sale from Memorial Day through Labor Day and is the third KFC recipe introduced in 68 years (Original Recipe and Extra Crispy are the other two). This is great news you might say if you’re a chili-head because this is spreading the word of spicy foods to a new section of the populous. Good news, save for one man who’s having his product line ruined by their promotion.

Chuck Evans, director of Chuck Evans’ MONTEZUMA Brand is the most prominent figure in North American Chipotle history. He single-handedly introduced and marketed the Chipotle into America’s lime light as a staple spice used in many cross-over cuisines. Such efforts include his wonderfully tasty SMOKEY CHIPOTLE (R) brand of pepper sauces and salsas, the very first Chipotle pepper sauces and salsas manufactured in the United States. Chuck co-authored books titled “The Hot Sauce Bible” and “The Pepper Pantry: Chipotle”, and has made numerous appearances at fiery foods industry events. Chuck also maintains the unique distinction as the sole remaining exhibitor who attended the very first fiery foods trade show held in 1988. He has recently appeared on The History Channel as a guest commentator on the history of hot sauces and salsas in their series: American Eats.

Now here’s the kicker, Chuck had the uncanny foresight to register the catchy phrase, “Smokey Chipotle”, with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Registration No. 1,874,062 filed January 17, 1995. Chuck’s trademark is the very first registration incorporating the word “Chipotle” listed in the USPTO. The USPTO disclaimed the word “Chipotle” where the word is a proper name. Fast forward 10 years of routinely policing his trademark against some of the largest food manufacturers in the world and you’ll find a picture painted of a small business owner diligently protecting his intellectual property rights.


Now, Chuck is faced with the undeniable violation of his trademark by Yum! Brands, Inc., the company that owns Kentucky Fried Chicken. In a recent interview with me, this is what Chuck Evans had to say, “I knew about this the day the 1st commercials aired since I was watching/listening to the television while cooking Smokey Chipotle salsa-true story.”

Yum! Brands, Inc., based in Louisville, Kentucky with 35,000 total restaurant units, owns KFC (14,000 units in world), Taco Bell, Long John Silvers, A&W Root Beer, and Pizza Hut, “has totally diluted my trademark with a national/international advertising campaign to the point that the general public will forever associate “smoky chipotle” with KFC just due to sheer advertising muscle (2 spots air on all stations, including cable, seemingly all the time).”

Due to the enormity of KFC’s marketing saturation, Chuck has retained a trademark attorney to address this matter. “My entire Smokey Chipotle (R) product line will lose its marketing uniqueness. Historically, I was the first individual to promote and pioneer chipotle as a common spice in the mainstream United States market, however, this infringement has definitely damaged the goodwill associated with my trademark and intellectual property rights.”

He went on to say, “One would think that KFC would have just done a simple search where www.smokychipotle.com and www.smokeychipotle.com (as well as www.smokedchipotle.com and www.smokinchipotle.com ) take you directly to my www.montezumabrand.com website… also, I show up 1st on a Google search for either spelling. Additionally, I purchased and own these domain names to protect against further dilution of my trademark, which trademark is easily found in an internet search.”

One might ask, “Well, KFC spells it “Smoky” and you spell it, “Smokey”. Doesn’t that make a difference?” Spelling variations are protected in word mark registrations, such as Chuck’s SMOKEY CHIPOTLE (R). This writer emailed Yum!Brands, Inc. for comment, however, I never received a reply.
 
I checked out the guy's website. He seems to have registered a very generic name and many companies have involuntarily used his "trademark". He lists company after company as infringing on his trademark, not just KFC. I don't see how you can trademark a description of a flavor. My personal opinion is it seems rather petty with the accusations the guy has made. It's like saying you own the rights to something called "Meaty Meat" and saying nobody else can use "meaty" in their line of products.

I guess he has the right, but i don't think i agree with it.
 
Here's the thing. If it was a reverse situation where KFC had registered the trademark first, and our friend (and small business owner) Chuck started marketing his Smokey Chipotle (no matter the spelling), they would slap him with a lawsuit so fast it would make your head spin.

It's one big reason I haven't ventured much further in the hot sauce biz. Google "Devil Duck" and see what items come flying at you besides my hot sauce.
 
1st I'll say I dont care about this issue, but can you even patent a discription of taste ? which anyways a chipotle is smokey! or is it smoky or smokie ? ;) so if an object is smokey anyways how can you really patent that discription ? as for a phrase yes but thats it a phrase not the discription of taste.
wouldnt everyone that uses chipotles be in violation to the patent if they discribed their product as to having "smokey chipotles" in it or "smoked chipotles" ?

& another thing is ,you said he patented "smokey" & then you said kfc used "smoky" well end of story, he has no case.
why do you think theres people watching the patents being made, because you can change it alittle bit & you're good to go, its called loopholes!
why do you think theres so many knock off products or other manufactures that make items so close in style as to other manufactures.
 
DevilDuck said:
Here's the thing. If it was a reverse situation where KFC had registered the trademark first, and our friend (and small business owner) Chuck started marketing his Smokey Chipotle (no matter the spelling), they would slap him with a lawsuit so fast it would make your head spin.

It's one big reason I haven't ventured much further in the hot sauce biz. Google "Devil Duck" and see what items come flying at you besides my hot sauce.
Fair enough. KFC absolutely would sue Chuck. While i still feel it's a frivelous lawsuit, i feel that way no matter who'd be sued.

Good topic!

And good luck Chuck. Fight a fair fight!
 
It is amazing how ignorant some people can be. Trademarks are not just handed out-there is an extensive time-consuming process long before government approval. As to patents-they are totally different from trademarks. While some people may not care-protection of property rights, i.e., name, service, product, etc. is the essence of goodwill for a business. As to the trademark, chipotle is already disclaimed by the trademark office. It is the phrase that is protected. I am sure that if Chipotle was available and one of the posting parties had the opportunity to trademark this name (no different than Tabasco-grandfathered in before current trademark laws in 1916) then it would be a different story. This is a David v. Goliath story and while other companies have intentionally violated the trademark, that is not to say that these companies are not being pursued for infringement-he is just exposing them publicly. And the fact that he is the little guy, is just the opposite of what usually happens. What this guy has done is to do everything he can to protect a valuable propertyy right that he created and developed for many years. We should fully support and applaud this type of effort-not bash it.
 
again its "smokey" vs "smoky" 2 different typed words, & if its a trademark then anything little that changes it then its no longer the same trademark, right!?
but I do understand the thought of little guys vs the big guys, but it is changed.
 
chilehunter said:
again its "smokey" vs "smoky" 2 different typed words, & if its a trademark then anything little that changes it then its no longer the same trademark, right!?
but I do understand the thought of little guys vs the big guys, but it is changed.

When I read the article about the KFC Smoky Chipotle it said that registration of a word mark addresses spelling differences. I am sure that since this trademark is for the phrase and not a certain image that is the tradsemark-like the image of Colonel Sanders for example-then the exact spelling is not the issue. Recently a decision was in the paper about a lingerie store in Kentucky called Victor's Secret. Victoria's Secret sued and forced them to change the name where the trademark infringement was confusingly similar. Spelling is not an issue where the infringement is obvious.
 
I hate to say it, but if names that simple can be owned, then I just need to trademark every stupid name from "smoky cheddar" to "Apple Spice" and just sit back and sue as the names pop up.

"Jim's Smoky Chipotle" I could understand, but smokey is not a trait that is unique to this guy's chipotles. Chipotles are smoked.

That's like trademarking Sharp Cheddar.

Sorry.
 
chilehunter said:
& another thing is ,you said he patented "smokey" & then you said kfc used "smoky" well end of story, he has no case.
why do you think theres people watching the patents being made, because you can change it alittle bit & you're good to go, its called loopholes!

You'll note that I addressed this in the article:

imaguitargod said:
One might ask, “Well, KFC spells it “Smoky” and you spell it, “Smokey”. Doesn’t that make a difference?” Spelling variations are protected in word mark registrations
 
Where's EZ earl or his sons when you need them? They could explain this one out easily.

cheezydemon said:
I hate to say it, but if names that simple can be owned, then I just need to trademark every stupid name from "smoky cheddar" to "Apple Spice" and just sit back and sue as the names pop up.

"Jim's Smoky Chipotle" I could understand, but smokey is not a trait that is unique to this guy's chipotles. Chipotles are smoked.

That's like trademarking Sharp Cheddar.

Sorry.

oh, here, check this thread:
http://www.thehotpepper.com/showthread.php?t=1440
They were trying to nail him for the word "stuff"
 
Very relevent sickmont, thanks for sharing.

It is not OK to just side with the little guy no matter what, but it is also unfair that big companies with money to burn have an unfair advantage over the little guy.

It is interesting to see 2 sides of an at least similar situation.
 
I agree. Ken-chucky Fat Chook is doing the wrong thing, but will the little guy be able to afford the legal bills? Consider that there is a room full of lawyers at K-chuck playing sudoku right now just waiting to do some work/drag the process out/bleed other party dry.

Other common phrases that have been "trademark"ed I've seen in lawsuits:

Just Do it.
Oh what a feeling
Just Cuts
Cheap Cuts
Style Cuts
Just for the taste of it
Homestyle
Ugh Boot
King of Burgers
Batman Cafe
Burger King
Original recipe
"prince"

Not to mention those lucky people that share a surname with a large franchise that make indestructible burgers

Try using any of these phrases in a marketing campaign and see how far you get.
 
Here in Australia:
We have hungry jacks coz someone in the '70's registered Burger King as their business name. They tried to shut em down and lost, ergo Hungry Jacks!

The Batman cafe (from addled memory) was in Melbourne, situated on Batman Ave. named after John Batman.
 
And he has a son, Daniel!
Daniel-Batman_w197_h138.jpg
 
Back
Top