Who owns Route 66? (2010)
shoestringtheory.com
shoestringtheory.com
Unnecessary acrimonious statement. Is it because it is a non-US company, or specifically a European company?
I believe French people could feel similarly insulted by California "champagne"⁰.
0: http://www.chapmanlawreview.com/archives/1256
* * *
EDIT:
Thanks for the replies. I agree California champagne is a poorly chosen example.
I understand the outrage about a Dutch company claiming ownership of the image of Route 66, but it just feels like "insulting" is too strong a word.
In one instance you are preventing others from profiting off their own culture. In the other you are piggybacking off of and profiting from another cultures success.
Both may be wrong but they are separate issues. Conflating them seems like a form of whataboutism.
"Using something from some other group's culture in a way that makes life for members of that other culture more difficult."
Is it copied from American culture? Yes.
Is their use of it making life more difficult for Americans? Yes.
You can register a US trademark with an "intent to use" it, but normally you have to submit a statement of use with an image of the trademark being used on some product within six months. Here, though, Tempting Brands filed in another country first, which gives them a pass on that initial requirement.
Between 5 and 6 years after initial registration, though, the trademark owner, even if non-US, must submit a statement with an image of the trademark being used on some product to the USPTO. Some of their trademarks, such as #79975044, just passed that point. There's a six month grace period after year 6 during which renewal is still possible with a double fee ($100 per class registered), and that's now timing out.
On the other hand, there are people badass enough to not bother trademarking (David Tran doesn't trademark Sriracha)