Chuck Evans of Montezuma Brand passed along this breaking news to us about his ongoing efforts to protect his trademarked “Smokey Chipotle” from being pilfered by a number of other organizations in the industry. Score yet another victory for Chuck! Way to go!!!
Chuck Evans’ SMOKEY CHIPOTLE(R) Trademark Upheld in Trademark Dispute
In a recent decision filed in December 2007, the United States Trademark and Trial Appeals Board upheld Chuck Evans’ SMOKEY CHIPOTLE(R) trademark; the first trademark utilizing “chipotle” in the United States. A petition to cancel Mr. Evans’ recognized trademark was filed by Chicago-based, Urban Accents, Inc. Patton Boggs, LLP, a Washington, D.C. law firm specializing in intellectual property rights litigation represented Urban Accents, Inc. In addition, Kraft Foods, North America, the world’s largest food manufacturer, by and through their global trademark senior counsel, supported Urban Accents efforts for cancellation, resulting in a nearly 2-year legal process. Mr. Evans represented his interests in the cancellation proceeding. SMOKEY CHIPOTLE(R) has been registered since 1995.
While Mr. Evans’ trademark had achieved incontestable status under the Lanham Act; incontestable trademarks are subject to cancellation only if the trademark is used generically in the category for which the trademark is registered. The Trademark and Appeals Board agreed with Mr. Evans’ argument that the phrase, Smokey Chipotle, was descriptive of Chuck Evans’ MONTEZUMA Brand products and not a generic term used in the prepared foods category.
Where the petition for cancellation was dismissed with prejudice, the Trademark Trial and Appeals Board decision establishes legal precedent in future challenges.
Popularity: 13% [?]
» Hot sauce featured on the History Channel
» Passow has a Menage A Trois
» New MONTEZUMA line of products released in time for Fiery Foods
» Review: Montezuma Smokey Chipotle (R) Lime & Garlic Salsa
![[Valid RSS]](valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
It’s good to see the small biz sticking it to the huge corporations. EZ Earl just went through the same thing and came out on top.
I don’t know why huge corporations think they can just take something because they didn’t think of it first.
I’d almost put money on it that I’ll be in that same mess down the road. It’s good to see a precedent being set in courtrooms.
Comment fired by Devil Duck — January 30, 2008- 12:22 am
Wow, what a great site you have here! You have so much fantastic information! I’m a BIG fan of hot sauces, but have only had 2-3 of your listings. Geez, I’ve got SO much catching up to do. I’m especially excited about trying out some of your homemade sauces too.
Comment fired by White On Rice Couple — January 30, 2008- 10:22 am
HA! Score one for the little guy! Congrats Chuck!
Comment fired by Jonathan Passow — January 31, 2008- 11:15 am
Way to go Chuck!
Comment fired by Tina Brooks — February 1, 2008- 1:09 pm
What a Spin Doctor. They lost interest ‘cuz your trademark is crap and you can’t get a penny out of anyone that knows better!
Comment fired by Arti Rothman — April 17, 2008- 6:53 pm
Arti,
Don’t be a troll. We don’t like trolls on this blog, and inflammatory comments like that are just showing what a troll can do on a blog who materializes out of the woodwork. Take your rhetoric elsewhere, since you seem unlikely to be able to support your opinions with anything more than snide remarks.
Comment fired by Joe & Linda — April 17, 2008- 8:23 pm
Hi Joe & Linda,
This is an interesting topic. I’m for the small guy winning, but Chuck is hurting the small guys here too. I know he’s your buddy. I just saw this comment and felt compelled to reply.
Comment fired by BuckyG — April 17, 2008- 8:34 pm
Our reply was less about the topic and more about this last person’s reply. You can speak your piece here since it’s an open forum and we won’t delete comments…but trolls who just want to spout nastiness can expect a reply notifying them of such. Have an intelligent discussion and we will certainly participate.
Comment fired by Joe & Linda — April 17, 2008- 8:41 pm
It is unfortunate that when ‘defending your mark’- as you are *required* to do in order to keep it- you run into both big guys and little guys. There is no way to defend your mark by saying ’some folks can, some folks can’t use it’. If anyone other than the owner uses it, and it’s not contested, you lose it due to ‘dilution’.
OH- and I’m one of the little guys who had to go through the expense of changing his labels and settling with Mr Evans over my ignorance of his mark
I say more power to him- if he had the foresight and wisdom to mark chipotle almost 25 years ago when no one had heard of it, so be it.
He took on Tabasco (and won) and they have more money for lawyers than all of us here will earn combined. Apparently somebody thinks the mark has merit
Comment fired by Jim- StepUpforCharity.org — April 24, 2008- 5:03 am