7 ms·
"No trademark" is misleading. They have trademarks. Without them I expect exact clones would take their sales. The bottle and logo are quite distinctive and tra
by modeless 5y ago
"No trademark" is misleading. They have trademarks. Without them I expect exact clones would take their sales. The bottle and logo are quite distinctive and trademarked. The thing they didn't trademark is the name Sriracha.
- mcjiggerlog 5y agoIn the thread: > 9/ Interestingly, Tran never trademarked "Sriracha" (he did trademark the green cap and rooster, though).
- patchtopic 5y agoperhaps because it is the name of the style of Thai chili sauce he is making, named after the Thai town.
- nemetroid 5y agoThe thread is fine, but the HN headline is editorialized in a misleading way.
- spoonjim 5y ago"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.
- vasco 5y agoI 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?
- Taniwha 5y agoApple spent years in court arguing with Apple music
- aranchelk 5y agoThis 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).
- garmaine 5y agoIt 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.
- timpattinson 5y agoand Delta, the power supply company
- philwelch 5y agoAnd Delta Dental, the dental insurance provider.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- contravariant 5y agoPresumably against Apple Records?
- aranchelk 5y ago> 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.
- blowski 5y agoGood question, I'm always confused about trademark and copyright laws.
- andylynch 5y agoThis is also why kiwifruit are marketed as Zespri etc.
- markdown 5y agoYou'd think so, but it happens all the times in the US, with American firms trademarking names of thinks from other languages.
- harshbutfair 5y agoMuch like ugg boots are the name of the boots. Oh wait. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-05-05/trademark-battle-for-australian-ugg-boots-back-in-us-court/100114174 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-05-05/trademark-battle-for-...
- athenot 5y agoApparently they can spell it in all uppercase and then it can be trademarked. Thinking of REALTOR®... which is as descriptive as it gets.
- spoonjim 5y agoWell Realtor wasn’t the name of the job before that brand. They were called estate agents.
- cehrlich 5y agoI'm not sure about America, but in Europe there are many imitations that also use the Sriracha name, similar looking bottle, etc.
- jxramos 5y agoyep, those are over here too, and they're all underwhelming. I don't think I've actively purchased any, but somehow I've sampled many of them. Maybe at restaurants that cut corners, maybe at friends houses. All were subpar in my tastes.
- faichai 5y agoYeah, I bought one thinking it would be more or less the same. But surprisingly very far off. The original is like Heinz is to ketchup.
- bserge 5y agoHeinz ketchup is pretty bad :D
- kenneth 5y agoAll ketchup is actually pretty bad. (Controversial opinion, European here who'll pick aioli over it any day)
- LargoLasskhyfv 5y agoYou are not alone!
- garmaine 5y agoThis is so ironic. I guess European brand and origin protectionism only applies to European brands?
- distances 5y agoOnly those with trade deals and registered GI in place obviously. I wouldn't mind if name sriracha would be some guarantee for origin and recipe, but alas, Thailand would of course need to demand that first. Note: I don't know much about sriracha so no idea if Thai people consider it to be a traditional local stuff or not.
- tj-teej 5y agoYeah, see Trader Joes Sriracha! https://kakaomart.com/products/trader-joes-sriracha-sauce-1-pack-18-25oz-517g https://kakaomart.com/products/trader-joes-sriracha-sauce-1-...
- ginko 5y agoAlso the thread mentioned they've protected the squeeze bottle with green cap design which I think only applies to the US. For instance in Europe most Asia stores stock 'goose brand' sriracha which apart from the animal look almost identical[1]. Got burned by that myself a while ago when the whole sriracha craze started online and I mistakenly bought a bottle of the goose brand stuff. [1] https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61aZqqvP7WL._SY445_.jpg https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61aZqqvP7WL...
- _ph_ 5y agoYes, here in Germany I only have seen the "goose" branded sriracha sauce. I quite like it, but of course, I don't know what I might be missing out.
- simlan 5y agoTastes the same to me. If at all the goose brand is slightly less spicy by default. Thanks to covid did not have the chance to do a cross check lately...
- LargoLasskhyfv 5y agoI'm ok with the Goose too. The green capped, the red capped I can tolerate, but it can be a bit much for me. Recently tried a so called 'A-One' with extra garlic(pink capped, 500ml) and it has been so so. Won't buy again.
- felixg3 5y agoFellow German here who gets angry about the Flying Goose brand whenever I go into an Asian store: It’s not the same. Huy Fong Foods is much better and has much fewer additives.
- La1n 5y ago> has much fewer additives. Goose: chili 61%, sugar syrup, salt, garlic, water, acids: E260, E330, monosodium glutamate (E621), xanthan gum E415, potassium sorbate (E202). Huy Fong: Chili, sugar, salt, garlic, distilled vinegar, potassium sorbate (E202), sodium bisulfite (E222), and xanthan gum (E415) Seems very similar, distilled vinegar is E260, and E330 is citric acid.
- sethd 5y agoIt doesn't seem to apply in this particular case, but it's also important to note that having a trademark is different from having a registered trademark.
- trappist 5y agoTrademark treats this as a crime against the original producer. Pretending to be that producer to fool the consumer into buying your product is a crime against the buyer known as fraud. IANAL and I don't know whether in a legal environment with trademark that form of fraud is recognized as such, but it should be and I think it would be a superior solution to the problem trademark is meant to solve.
- dang 5y agoOK, we've taken the trademark out of the title above. Now someone else will point out how they had a sales team and bought ads...