4 ms·

> Chick-fil-A tried to stop him after first finding out about the sales in 2006 but then gave up the fight. >That is, until Muller-Moore filed for trademark pr

> Chick-fil-A tried to stop him after first finding out about the sales in 2006 but then gave up the fight. >That is, until Muller-Moore filed for trademark protection in early 2011. well that's pretty different than it sounded like based on reading the other HN comments. they aren't going after him for using the phrase (they did try that in the past, but gave up), but for trying to trademark it!

DannyBee 14y ago
They aren't going after him, just probably opposing the registration in front of the PTO. If you are a party who may be damaged by issuance, you can challenge the registration before it issues. EDIT: Actually, looking closer they aren't even opposing, the PTO issued the rejection directly, without any involvment from chick-fil-a at all. It never even made it to the opposition stage. http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=85412053&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=85412053&caseType=SERI... There are no filings or documents from chick-fil-a in here at all. The examiner apparently came up with the rejection reason on their own (any communications chick-fil-a had by phone with the examiner would have been on record and here as well) It's even been through two examiners now. That said, the current examiner's arguments seem like complete and total BS. Double edit: I take it back, it looks like one of these actually is a notice of a letter of protest (december 22nd, 2011), which functions much like an opposition. However, only the outgoing notice that a letter of protest is filed is there, the actual letter of protest (received, december 2011), presumably from chick-fil-a, is for some reason, not in the documents. Sorry, i'm much more used to reading patent dockets than trademark ones :)
- majormajor 13y ago
  The article says that they re-contacted him directly to try to get him to stop using it after he filed for protection: "In October 2011 Chick-fil-A sent a letter to Muller-Moore stating that he had to stop using the phrase because it may be confused with the company’s. They also told him to stop using his website, eatmorekale.com." Which, given that they'd stopped after 2006, does make it look rather like a don't-poke-the-bear thing regarding his own filing for trademark protection after Chick-Fil-A had initially dropped it.
  - DannyBee 13y ago
    Fair, but they almost had to, if they wanted to be able to oppose it sanely, since they knew about him using it, etc.

DannyBee 14y ago

They aren't going after him, just probably opposing the registration in front of the PTO. If you are a party who may be damaged by issuance, you can challenge the registration before it issues. EDIT: Actually, looking closer they aren't even opposing, the PTO issued the rejection directly, without any involvment from chick-fil-a at all. It never even made it to the opposition stage. http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=85412053&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=85412053&caseType=SERI... There are no filings or documents from chick-fil-a in here at all. The examiner apparently came up with the rejection reason on their own (any communications chick-fil-a had by phone with the examiner would have been on record and here as well) It's even been through two examiners now. That said, the current examiner's arguments seem like complete and total BS. Double edit: I take it back, it looks like one of these actually is a notice of a letter of protest (december 22nd, 2011), which functions much like an opposition. However, only the outgoing notice that a letter of protest is filed is there, the actual letter of protest (received, december 2011), presumably from chick-fil-a, is for some reason, not in the documents. Sorry, i'm much more used to reading patent dockets than trademark ones :)

majormajor 13y ago
The article says that they re-contacted him directly to try to get him to stop using it after he filed for protection: "In October 2011 Chick-fil-A sent a letter to Muller-Moore stating that he had to stop using the phrase because it may be confused with the company’s. They also told him to stop using his website, eatmorekale.com." Which, given that they'd stopped after 2006, does make it look rather like a don't-poke-the-bear thing regarding his own filing for trademark protection after Chick-Fil-A had initially dropped it.
- DannyBee 13y ago
  Fair, but they almost had to, if they wanted to be able to oppose it sanely, since they knew about him using it, etc.