Hacker News Reader

Comment by spoonjim | Hacker News Reader

"Sriracha" couldn't be trademarked because it is the name of the sauce. It's like someone trying to trademark "Kansas City style Barbeque Sauce" -- can't be done.

View on HN

You'd think so, but it happens all the times in the US, with American firms trademarking names of thinks from other languages.

Much like ugg boots are the name of the boots. Oh wait. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-05-05/trademark-battle-for-...

Apparently they can spell it in all uppercase and then it can be trademarked. Thinking of REALTOR®... which is as descriptive as it gets.

Well Realtor wasn’t the name of the job before that brand. They were called estate agents.

I don't know much about trademark but I know of this company called Apple. Would Apple be blocked from trademarking it's name if it sold actual Apples instead of computers?

Apple spent years in court arguing with Apple music

This is true, but the situation was Apple (the computer company) moved into the music business with iTunes; Apple (the record company) was already long established. Apple (the record company) was the plaintiff trying to block Apple (the computer company).

My (limited) knowledge is solely of US law, but different companies with the same trademark can coexist in different industries, e.g. Delta (the airline) and Delta (the faucet company).

It happened twice actually. Apple (the record company) sued Apple (the computer company) back in the 80's. The judgement then was that the computer company could keep using their name so long as they never enter the music business. Then they released iPod & iTunes, and got sued again for breach of their court-mediated agreement. The record company won a settlement IIRC.

and Delta, the power supply company

And Delta Dental, the dental insurance provider.

Presumably against Apple Records?

> Would Apple be blocked from trademarking it's name if it sold actual Apples instead of computers?

Yes. In the US, if Apple sold apples, its name would be classified as descriptive and they would not have any exclusive right to that mark when selling apples. Other companies could also label their apples with "apple" and Apple could not stop them.

Good question, I'm always confused about trademark and copyright laws.

This is also why kiwifruit are marketed as Zespri etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com