Wij? ve gezien allen het adverteerde op TV. of wanneer u door lokaal Kentucky braadde Kip drijft. “Rokerige ChipotleDe“ knapperige Kip is nu voor verkoop van HerdenkingsDag door de Dag van de Arbeid en is het derde recept van KFC dat in 68 jaar wordt geïntroduceerdg (het Originele Recept en Extra Knapperig zijn andere twee). Dit is groot nieuws u zou kunnen zeggen als u? aangaande een peper-hoofd omdat dit het woord van kruidig voedsel aan een nieuwe sectie van dichtbevolkt uitspreidt. Goed nieuws, behalve de één mens wie? s dat zijn productlijn heeft die door hun bevordering wordt geruïneerd.
Klem Evans, directeur van Het Merk van Evans' MONTEZUMA van de klem is het prominentste cijfer in Noordamerikaanse geschiedenis Chipotle. Hij introduceerde en bracht enig-handedly Chipotle in Amerika op de markt? s kalklicht als voornaamste kruid dat in vele oversteekplaatscuisines wordt gebruikt. Dergelijke inspanningen omvatten zijn wonderfully smakelijk (r) merk SMOKEY CHIPOTLE van pepersausen en salsas, de allereerste Chipotle vervaardigde pepersausen en salsas in de Verenigde Staten. Titled boeken de mede gecreëerd van de klem? De hete Bijbel van de Saus? en? Pantry van de Peper: Chipotle? , en talrijke verschijningen bij de vurige gebeurtenissen van de voedselindustrie heeft gemaakt. De klem handhaaft ook het unieke onderscheid aangezien de enige resterende exposant die de allereerste vurige voedselhandel bijwoonde gehouden in 1988 toont. Hij is onlangs op het Kanaal van de Geschiedenis als gastcommentator op de geschiedenis van hete sausen en salsas in hun reeks verschenen: Amerikaan eet.
Nu hier? s kicker, Klem had de geheimzinnige vooruitziendheid om de boeiende uitdrukking te registreren? Smokey Chipotle? , met het Bureau van het Octrooi en van het Handelsmerk van Verenigde Staten (USPTO), Registratie Nr. ingediende 1.874.062 17 Januari, 1995. Chuck’s trademark is the very first registration incorporating the word “Chipotle” listed in the USPTO. The USPTO disclaimed the word “Chipotle” where the word is a proper name. Fast forward 10 years of routinely policing his trademark against some of the largest food manufacturers in the world and you?ll find a picture painted of a small business owner diligently protecting his intellectual property rights.
Now, Chuck is faced with the undeniable violation of his trademark by Yum! Brands, Inc., the company that owns Kentucky Fried Chicken. In a recent interview with me, this is what Chuck Evans had to say, ?I knew about this the day the 1st commercials aired since I was watching/listening to the television while cooking Smokey Chipotle salsa-true story.”
Yum! Brands, Inc., based in Louisville, Kentucky with 35,000 total restaurant units, owns KFC (14,000 units in world), Taco Bell, Long John Silvers, A&W Root Beer, and Pizza Hut, “has totally diluted my trademark with a national/international advertising campaign to the point that the general public will forever associate “smoky chipotle” with KFC just due to sheer advertising muscle (2 spots air on all stations, including cable, seemingly all the time).?
Due to the enormity of KFC’s marketing saturation, Chuck has retained a trademark attorney to address this matter. “My entire Smokey Chipotle (R) product line will lose its marketing uniqueness. Historically, I was the first individual to promote and pioneer chipotle as a common spice in the mainstream United States market, however, this infringement has definitely damaged the goodwill associated with my trademark and intellectual property rights.?
He went on to say, ?One would think that KFC would have just done a simple search where www.smokychipotle.com and www.smokeychipotle.com (as well as www.smokedchipotle.com and www.smokinchipotle.com ) take you directly to my www.montezumabrand.com website… also, I show up 1st on a Google search for either spelling. Additionally, I purchased and own these domain names to protect against further dilution of my trademark, which trademark is easily found in an internet search.?
One might ask, ?Well, KFC spells it ?Smoky? and you spell it, ?Smokey?. Doesn?t that make a difference?? Spelling variations are protected in word mark registrations, such as Chuck’s SMOKEY CHIPOTLE (R). This writer emailed Yum!Brands, Inc. for comment, however, I never received a reply.
Popularity: 15% [?]
» Grillmasters Festival 2008
» The Real History of Tabasco, part 3
» Bobby Flay’s got more sauce!
» Passow Gets Another Naga Snake Bite
![[Valid RSS]](valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
Praise Chuck for sticking up to these Coporate B*stards trying to steal his intellectual property rights…he deserves a huge settlement.
Comment fired by Turk — June 16, 2008- 7:08 am
I don’t want to question Chuck’s merits spreading the word about chipotle at all, and he sure makes some excellent sauces.
The trouble is that the U.S. PTO accepts generic descriptive terms like “smokey chipotle” to begin with. What’s next - some guy or company trademarking “cold beer”? “hot pepper”? “red tomato”?
Btw., when I went to …
http://www.smokinchipotle.com
… my firewall advised me that
this site tried to install a Trojan
downloader on my PC.
Comment fired by Harald Zoschke — June 17, 2008- 11:57 am
Chipotle is a spice, which is the sole result of a “smoking” process to preserve a fresh chile, commonly a ripened jalapeno. The word Chipotle means “smoked chile” and derives from Nahuat(l) the Aztec language, although I have found etymological origins of the word “tzilli” stemming from tzir-”to irritate” from the Mayans, and possibly, the mother culture of Mesoamerica, the Olmecas who lived in the Jalapa (the word “jalapeno” derives form this state in Mexico) and Tabasco states/regions of Mexico. The Nahuat “Chilpoctli” was corrupted by the Spanish “chilpotle” where today’s “chipotle” derives from chil=chile and poctli=smoke. Where Chipotle is a formally recognized name of a processed chile, the word “chipotle” is specifically excluded/disclaimed on the trademark registration-approved by the trademark examining attorney, therefore “chipotle” by itself cannot be trademarked, in and of itself, in the trademark category Class 30 which includes ingredients, spices, condiments, sauces, etc. However, catchy phrases and marketing slogans can be marked where the phrase is distinctive and original. Smokey Chipotle is actually, and intentionally, redundant; meaning smokey smoked chile. The test is that whether a product does not need to be described by anything than using the disclaimed descriptor, in this case, Chipotle by itself, for example: Smoky Chipotle Crispy Chicken could just have easily been called Chipotle Crispy Chicken or the Colonel’s Chipotle Crispy or any number of various phrases to market their NEW chicken flavor. Smokey Chipotle was the first phrase continuously used where it received approval from the trademark examining attorney; where upon npublication no one opposed rregistration, and then the mark was granted registration on the primary register. Usually a 1 1/2-2 year registration process. Remember that when the trademark was granted, no one had any idea that the mark had any value or marketability. IMPORTANT for meeting registration criteria: Smokey Chipotle is not descriptive as the phrase is not necessary to describe the spice itself. No one ever calls a chipotle “a smoky chipotle”. Do you order smoky chipotles from a supplier? No, you order chipotle. There is a specific legal distinction in what can and cannot be trademarked. Where this phrase has been in existence for more than 13 years, the mark is deemed incontestable, although generic use is an exception-however, this exception was challenged in a cancellation proceeding, upheld by default judgment,and defeated. the passage of time and foresight are the keys to longevity. I find it strange that individuals have no real understanding of the process of actually being granted and achieving a trademark, what is able to be marked, and why a trademark is an intellectual property right that must meet specific requirements to stand the test of time. I would think that anyone in this business would have a hard time accepting that TABASCO (R) is permitted to stand, however, it is a famous mark, and under the criteria specified in the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995, it can NEVER be contested. Eventually, Smokey Chipotle (R) could achieve this distinction.
Comment fired by Montezuma — June 17, 2008- 7:17 pm
The first thing I said to my wife when we saw the commercial was “Someone is gonna get sued”. The second thing was “Damn, Chuck is gonna make a lot of money off this one!”.
Comment fired by Sam — June 18, 2008- 3:25 am
Hehehe, good one, Sam.
Comment fired by Jonathan Passow — June 18, 2008- 9:13 am
Chuck, you may want to check the menu at Chili’s resturants. They have “smoky honey-chipotle”. Cut me in on some of that Chipotle money and I’ll keep scouting about for ya (lol).
Comment fired by Turk — June 18, 2008- 9:54 am
Hey Harold, I agree with you! There goes my plans to trademark “Spicy Jalapeno” and “Hot Habanero” All I can say is Good Luck Chuck. I hope someone finally ends this BS!
Comment fired by BuckyG — June 19, 2008- 11:38 pm
Yeah, and I got the Virus thing on the history page too, most of Chuck’s site is infected so surf with caution!
Comment fired by BuckyG — June 19, 2008- 11:40 pm
I’m glad I’m not the only one, BuckyG.
There goes another great trademark: “infectious virus”
Comment fired by Harald Zoschke — June 20, 2008- 5:56 am
Hey Harold, I agree with you! There goes my plans to trademark ?Spicy Jalapeno? and ?Hot Habanero? Comment fired by BuckyG
Harold:
While you may disagree with what the United States Trademark Office does, which is your opinion and is fine with me, you should be aware that the credibility of the individual you agree with is totally suspect in this matter. BuckyG aka Ron Levi of Innuendo Foods in San Francisco manufactures, under his Pebble Creek label, Pebble Creek Smoky Chipotle Grill Glaze. Of course, he knowingly and intentionally continues to directly violate my trademark, infringing on the property of an individual’s creativity and investment in marketing a product protected under the laws of this country. Further, to make matters worse, Mr. Levi has advised a customer of Innuendo Foods, Monty’s Gourmet, to ignore a previous cease and desist letter, and subsequent follow-up letters, as to the manufacture of another of his co-packed sauces, which product name also infringes my trademark.
Not only is this type of behavior deplorable and unethical, but the goodwill and intellectual property rights (name recognition) that all of us strive to develop, whether through federal registration protection or common law, is what differentiates our businesses and is what we use to target consumers to purchase our unique products. These “property rights” are created and then developed through advertisements, label development, catchy phrases, unique recipes, product names, marketing campaigns, and promotions. I am doing no less in the protection of my business’ goodwill/property rights as, for example, Innuendo Foods would do if someone copied their logo, slogan/name, etc.
However, Mr. Levi IS the pot calling the kettle black in this situation. And yes, Innuendo Foods and 20 other infringers will be politely asked to cease and desist. KFC has raised the stakes significantly, however also without oversight and unintentionally, diluting my trademark on such a massive scale that a person’s inability to recognize the significance of what sheer saturation of advertising dollars can do to a small company, is akin to hiding your head in the sand. Last night, on just one channel, KFC’s commercial played 8 times while I had the television on. And this campaign is on every channel, including cable channels, as well as international commercials on Univision and Telemundo-which have also been brought to my attention-the commercials even include an advertising jingle of “Pica, pica, pica” meaning “spicy, spicy, spicy” … ironically not smoky, smoky, smoky-further supporting the fact already addfressed in the USPTO filings that “smok(e)y chipotle” cannot be construed to be generic where “chipotle” was/is already disclaimed by the trademark examining attorneys/office. This disclaimer occurs not only in my registration, but in all other registrations for “chipotle” in Class 30 (condiments, ingredients,spices).
I have been extremely diligent in the protection of MY “property” right over the past 10 years, and have attempted to be workable about the conditions to terminate usage of my mark by infringers in more than 72 infringement actions, especially with smaller companies/individuals in our industry. However, due to the fact that my trademark is now an international issue, there will be no tolerance in strictly enforcing the continued, and in only a few cases, intentional, violations of my mark. I have retained trademark counsel to immediately address the protections afforded me under federal law from copycats, directly and by innuendo.
As to the infection, I appreciate the heads up, this is a recent problem that was discovered just a few days ago. I am taking appropriate steps to correct this matter-if anyone has any intelligent suggestions as to the exact process to remove these programs-their POSITIVE input would be appreciated. Thank you.
Comment fired by Montezuma — June 22, 2008- 10:38 am
Hey, like it or not it’s still Chuck’s property. You don’t have to be jealous that you didn’t think of it first, or maybe you did and didn’t take action to make it your own. Any way you look at it the facts remain. You cannot take that which isn’t yours. If you don’t already know that, here is your notice. Chuck owns Smok(e)y Chipotle. I think the fact that he doesn’t sue people straight away, and actually sends the cease and disist letter is a professional courtesy. I would like to use the phrase myself. I’m not gonna steal it though. I have met many manufacturers in the hot sauce community. For the most part we are like a big family. Don’t steal from your family.
Comment fired by Sam — June 24, 2008- 4:50 pm
Wait! Better yet, Don’t Steal!
Comment fired by Sam — June 24, 2008- 5:04 pm
Sage words of advice, Sam.
Comment fired by Jonathan Passow — June 24, 2008- 9:00 pm
Hey Montezuma aka Chuck Evans, Since I am not counsel, I instructed no-one! Monty’s Gourmet retained their own attorneys to deal with you. Secondly I stole nothing from you and my reputation is unmarked in this industry. Your implications are unfounded and if you did some research you would realize how wrong you really are. As for the virus on your site, perhaps one of your extortion victims put it there? Poison begets poison.
Comment fired by BuckyG — June 27, 2008- 11:14 am
Here are Google’s Stats for Chucks Page in case you want to go check it out:
Safe Browsing Diagnostic page for http://www.montezumabrand.com/
What is the current listing status for http://www.montezumabrand.com/?
Site is listed as suspicious - visiting this web site may harm your computer.
Part of this site was listed for suspicious activity 1 time(s) over the past 90 days.
What happened when Google visited this site?
Of the 1 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 1 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. The last time Google visited this site was on 06/25/2008, and the last time suspicious content was found on this site was on 06/15/2008.
Malicious software includes 4 trojan(s). Successful infection resulted in an average of 1 new processes on the target machine.
Malicious software is hosted on 1 domain(s), including 58.65.232.0.
Has this site acted as an intermediary resulting in further distribution of malware?
Over the past 90 days, http://www.montezumabrand.com/ did not appear to function as an intermediary for the infection of any sites.
Has this site hosted malware?
No, this site has not hosted malicious software over the past 90 days.
How did this happen?
In some cases, third parties can add malicious code to legitimate sites, which would cause us to show the warning message.
Comment fired by BuckyG — June 27, 2008- 11:20 am
Bucky-my final response to this matter:
Since you assert you “stole nothing” and your “reputation is unmarked in this industry” then I would be glad to accept that you will voluntarily comply forthwith to cease and desist from using my registered trademark on your product. As to Monty’s I KNOW what was disclosed. As to “extortion victims” you are referencing my previous (and no longer) willingness to permit smaller companies to use up their inventories and labels for a short period of time in exchange for a penalty/compensation-the extortion as you deem it. Whatever you choose to call it, I requested compensation (agreed to by both parties) for DILUTION and INFRINGEMENT of my trademark, while at the same time recognizing that for many small companies, replacing product and labels is a significant cost. Most infringing companies willingly, and without any hesitation, accepted my offer allowing them to get new labels in place and not to affect finished inventory. NO ONE has complained as much about my trademark, Smokey Chipotle, as YOU have-through this thread, third party conversations, AND other reliable sources, i.e., the Monty’s “disclosure”.
I am fully aware that no one is going to tell you what to do-unfortunately for me, for on occasion I have to cross paths with individuals who willingly, and knowingly, infringe upon my trademark, including your Pebble Creek product. Of course, this type of posturing is nothing more than a real pain in the rear for me defending what is already mine. I would prefer that you recognize my properly-attained and federally-protected PROPERTY right. I now understand your “knowing” opposition, you already knew that eventually there might be an issue because of your product. It is up to you how miniscule or time-wasteful you make it. On the other hand, I have NO CHOICE, for the retention of a trademark requires me to protect my intellectual property right…granted to me LONG LONG AGO. I will never understand your contempt for my trademark, other than you disagree with the federal government granting it in the first place…nearly 14 years ago-the first ever mark incorporating the word “chipotle”. I gambled and developed a catchy phrase to market a line of products for the specific spice, chipotle, a spice that NO ONE knew anything about, at that time (other than persons from/near Mexico).
Unfortunatley, I have to accept lots of things I don’t like either-such as dealing with obstinance! As to your infringing label, it would be easier to just change it. Then we can all move on… Too easy a solution?
Comment fired by Montezuma — June 27, 2008- 12:48 pm
Montezuma,
You should check your sources. Getting your information 3rd party seems to have you very confused. It seems what YOU KNOW is as diluted as your brand.
Furthermore, why are you always inclined to make everything a personal attack? I have no contempt for you or your brand. I had not heard of you, nor had I heard of your brand until you attacked Monty’s Gourmet.
Some of us are successful in business and then there are those who are into everyone’s business.
Comment fired by BuckyG — June 27, 2008- 2:15 pm
Bucky it looks like your the one who won’t answer the Questions, stop blaming others for your mistake.
“reputation is unmarked in this industry.”
MMMMMMM everyone I talk to says your a tool.
Again just my two cents……LOL….. But I have no morales, if you want to advertise on my site I’ll take your money..
Comment fired by BLANE — June 27, 2008- 4:55 pm
Damn it, Blane! You made me spit beer all over the computer screen…. hehe
Comment fired by Jonathan Passow — June 27, 2008- 8:35 pm
Hey Blane,
Blane: Bucky it looks like your the one who won?t answer the Questions, stop blaming others for your mistake.
I’m not the one who made a mistake nor am I blaming anyone for anything?
Blane: MMMMMMM everyone I talk to says your a tool.
Everyone you talk to? Who are you anyways? I don’t know you and you don’t know me or anyone in my circle. What’s with the aggressive BS?
Blane: Again just my two cents??LOL?.. But I have no morales, if you want to advertise on my site I?ll take your money..
All I can say to that is WHAT?????
This is not a constructive discussion and I don’t feel like calling you names, especially since I don’t know you.
…..uncle, you win.
Comment fired by BuckyG — June 27, 2008- 9:37 pm
Hey Bucky go here to see Blane
http://headwinderlicker.com/
Comment fired by Bvitek — June 28, 2008- 7:17 am
Thanks that was to easy……….
Comment fired by BLANE — June 28, 2008- 9:49 am
Sorry for the emergency interuption, you can now enjoy your regular program.
Comment fired by BLANE — June 28, 2008- 9:52 am
List of people I still haven’t met….
*Jonathon
*Harald
*Bucky
*Blane
Met Chuck at FFS. The only reason I have to side with Chuck is he was smart enough to trademark. A brilliant decision, and a money maker. Being first pays! HMMM, Cold Beer, Red Tomato, Spicy Jalapeno, Hot Habanero…
I look forward to meeting the rest of you guys at the shows. Let’s have a few beers and talk shop.
Comment fired by Sam — June 28, 2008- 3:34 pm
Hey Sam! Can’t wait to meet you at Jungle Jim’s! You are going right?
Comment fired by Jonathan Passow — June 28, 2008- 3:38 pm
Unfortunately no! I have the fourth son due that weekend and even though it looks like she will deliver early I don’t think there is an ice cubes chance she is gonna let me do a fly in for the weekend. I have ZF and HHF on the schedule as an exhibitor, I am trying to convince her to let me go to Austin as well.
Comment fired by Sam — June 28, 2008- 3:42 pm
Awww, you will be missed. Congrats on the new arival. We’ll we be seeing a new sauce inspired by the young one? Like “Zane & Zack’s Super Sweet Serrano Baby Food”?
Comment fired by Jonathan Passow — June 28, 2008- 3:46 pm
Nope. It’s 4 Brothers Hot Pepper Sauce, smokey garlic habanero… Notice I avoided the word CHIPOTLE? Even though it is in the sauce. Potential Fiery Food Challenge winner, keep your eyes open. Send me your new address I have a bunch of interesting goodies you should try,… you don’t like chocolate do you?
Comment fired by Sam — June 28, 2008- 3:52 pm
Ohhh, sounds good. Just spell it “smooookey chipotlay”, don’t worry, you’ll get away with it…hehe, just joking Chuck
Email sent, Sam!
Comment fired by Jonathan Passow — June 28, 2008- 4:00 pm
Just noticed, this is the 6th most comment article on the site.
Comment fired by Jonathan Passow — June 28, 2008- 4:01 pm
Let’s make it number 5
Comment fired by Buddah — June 28, 2008- 10:40 pm
Woo Hoo! Who’s yur Mama?
Comment fired by Buddah — June 28, 2008- 10:43 pm
“Let?s make it number 5 :D”
I always take the 5th
Comment fired by bentalphanerd — June 29, 2008- 2:19 am
“Woo Hoo! Who?s yur Mama?”
Heidi is, why do you ask?
“I always take the 5th”
I do too. I’m very happy in the knowledge that I don’t have to talk to any police officer at all, ever. I pleed the 5th.
Comment fired by Jonathan Passow — June 29, 2008- 11:06 am
Wow! Very interesting and entertaining thread, and boy am I glad that we used the name “Smolderin’ Chipotle” instead of Smoky Chipotle for our Cape Fear chipotle sauce. It pays to listen to veteran sauce makers when naming a product, and in the case of this particular trademark, I’m glad that I listened to wise counsel.
Comment fired by Cape Fear Pepper Company — June 29, 2008- 3:14 pm
I don’t know Cape Fear. I think smolderin’ is just a different way of saying smokin’ which is just another way of saying smoky which is just the correct way to spell smokey. You might want to change that label.
Comment fired by BuckyG — June 29, 2008- 6:20 pm
Something new at WOF show..The only show with a Blogger booth. Wait tell you see the BLOGGER BOOTH, TONS OF ITEM TO SELL ALL PROCEED FROM THE ITEMS GO TO CHARITY. HERE IS A FEW OF THEM. Step Up, Joe & Linda HEAT for Autism, And a few more that are surprises. This Booth will be rockin..
Comment fired by Bvitek — June 30, 2008- 7:11 am
BuckyG - Everyone knows Blane…where ya been? He’s the “Notorious P.I.G.” of the Hot Sauce Industry and a great guy to know.
As far as the trademarking goes, you can use smoldering chipotle or any other form of verbal conjugation with chipotle unless it’s already trademarked like Chuck’s trademarked Smokey or Smoky Chipotle or Cape Fear’s Smoldering Chipotle.
The reality is that Chuck is just doing what he legally has to do in order to maintain his intellectual property rights. He is also being very fair in the fact that he initially sends a cease and desist order so count yourself fortunate because if KFC own the rights and you were messing with them, I don’t think they would be so accommodating.
Now let’s get back to the Brotherhood thing and Kum Ba Yah.
Comment fired by Turk — July 6, 2008- 3:37 pm
Hi Turk,
I don’t know who BLANE is and I don’t know who all his friends are that have told him I’m a tool. From those comments I can figure out what kind of a person BLANE is so whatever, no grudges.
As far as KFC goes here’s some info on that:
http://rojosgourmet.blogspot.com/2008/07/kfc-accused-of-trademark-infringement.html
Figure this will get things smokin’ again!
Comment fired by BuckyG — July 8, 2008- 12:49 am
Let me see if I can make myself a blog, and use it for a means to slander someone. Then go to another Blog and post the link so people might react to it. Wait, I got an idea, let me also post on that blog like someone really cares and no one will even know it’s me. What a novel idea. So when people come to my blog, the fervor will have been created and they will want to post something too. Wow, I am so evil that I nearly pissed in my pants at the thought.
Bucky, I never met you, but just seeing you use this forum to smear another in the industry is the same thing as you are accusing Chuck in doing, and it makes me REALLY want to buy your hot sauces. NOT!
I also notice that there are 7 comments on that thread of yours, and that is more than the combined total of the 20 other threads by your company Rojo’s blog put together. Why don’t you let it go, and let the law takeover? I am not saying what Chuck is doing is something to commend him on, but he is within his rights by the law. If you don’t like it, then go move to Canada.
I can’t wait to Passow reads his name in that diatribe. No I am not Chuck Evans. I am good Jewish boy that grew up in Long Island, and was taught by his parents to treat people with respect. I would respect you a lot more Mr Goldstein if you turned the other cheek and just promoted your own projects. I hear they are good.
Comment fired by Buddah — July 8, 2008- 5:38 am
You are so spot on Buddah. I can’t, for the life of me, figure out why all of these people are defending a big corporate giant like KFC. Rest assured that if some little guy crossed their intellectual property rights then they would immediately terminate their existence. It blows my mind that people are so passionate in defending this huge corporate juggernaut that is trying to steal from the little guy. Come on, the Mom and Pop operations need to work together to have any kind of advantage against these Goliaths.
Comment fired by Turk — July 8, 2008- 8:18 am
Hi Buddah & Turk,
It’s simply the other side of the coin. It’s not about Mom and Pop versus the Goliath, it is about right and wrong. I’m not trying to get you to buy my stuff and there is no slander; I just stated facts.
It’s not OK for ANYONE to act slimy, big or small. All I did was make a wise crack in response to Harald’s post early in this thread and then I was personally brought in to a sh!t slinging contest by montezuma himself with his incorrect public accusations.
Comment fired by BuckyG — July 8, 2008- 10:42 am
Bucky - Look, I agree that Paris Hilton trademarking “That’s Hot” is ridiculous because those are words that have been in use singularly and conjunctively before she ever trademarked the use of it but providing protection for people that trademark a unique assemmilation of words makes complete sense to me. Chuck does not own the use of Chipotle in it’s singular form (unless he created it) but does own a trademarked descriptive assemmilation of words that utilize the word Chipotle. Period. What’s the backstory with you and him? Sounds like a movie of the week episode the way you keep going on.
Comment fired by Turk — July 8, 2008- 12:20 pm
I don?t know who BLANE is and I don?t know who all his friends are that have told him I?m a tool. From those comments I can figure out what kind of a person BLANE is so whatever, no grudges
Let me explain the rules: Once you say Uncle your suppose to shut up (I was going to use the F word, but I don’t want to be that person you mentioned)……..
Okay do you understand the rules? Or should we start over?
I can slow down and talk in Short Bus terms if needed.
Comment fired by BLANE — July 8, 2008- 12:58 pm
Bucky, Blane…Blane meet Bucky. Consider yourself introduced and may God have mercy on your soul (lol).
Comment fired by Turk — July 8, 2008- 1:11 pm
Thanks for the intro. Oh, and I’m not very good a following rules!
Comment fired by BuckyG — July 8, 2008- 4:41 pm
“Thanks for the intro. Oh, and I?m not very good a following rules!”
Comment fired by BuckyG ? July 8, 2008- 4:41 pm
Which is why you want to fight against copyright infringement.
Treat people like you want to be treated. You will live a happier and more fulfilling life.
Comment fired by Buddah — July 8, 2008- 5:58 pm
Watch for Chuck’s new line of hot sauces “Baboon Buttocks”!
KFC has stomped on his trademark. With all the advertising that has been out there, if someone sees the Montezuma Brand label, they will say “He’s rippin’ off KFC. That’s what he’s talkin’ about
Comment fired by Smokin J — July 8, 2008- 6:21 pm
Look Guys,
You’ve got me wrong. I am not disagreeing with the principals of trademark here. I don’t even know Chuck Evans. I just got involved in this thread and suddenly it became about me ripping him off? Huh? I’m a tool? Huh? talk about spiral out of control.
I actually agree with most of the things you guys are saying… Except for BLANE!
So let me say something to sum this up. I have NEVER stolen anything from anyone, Chuck Evans included. Like Buddah says “I am good Jewish boy that grew up in” California, “and was taught by his parents to treat people with respect.” I’m sure KFC can hold their own in this fight and I am in no way an advocate for big corporate rhetoric. I hate to see guys like Monty, THT, Scotty’s get hurt and possibly driven out of business because of someone’s greed.
Comment fired by BuckyG — July 8, 2008- 6:57 pm
Time for the folks minding the store here to weigh in on things…
As for the link that BuckyG posted, we went there and viewed it. First of all, it’s a mild breach of blogging etiquette to cross-post to another blog without permission, or at least without notification beforehand. Secondly, some of the remarks there are borderline libelous…particularly in relation to comments on Chuck’s character or his supposed perception by people in the industry, especially through sources best described as hearsay. Lastly, we find it curious that five of the seven comments on that blog posting were anonymous. Therefore, we have no way of knowing whether or not those are real comments by real people or whether they are the continued opinions of the article’s author. Therefore, those comments have no merit to us in their substance (or lack thereof.) We are not here to defend Chuck Evans in his business practices, use of the patent office or patent law, or anything of the sort. That said, Chuck has acted within the law in defending his trademark…whether you agree with it or not. If there is a flaw in how this patent was done, then that issue seems to not be with Chuck Evans or Montezuma Brand, as they filed the proper legal papers for a patent and were legally granted it. The rest of this nonsense is merely commentary and opinion.
Comment fired by Joe & Linda — July 8, 2008- 6:59 pm
Hi Joe and Linda,
Sorry for stepping on your blog’s etiquette. I did not realize when I posted the link.
Comments are posted by real people. I am the author and since my opinions; and thats all they are, were already expressed there would be no point for me to forge comments.
I know you don’t usually, but I would be fine with you removing the comment containing the link if you like.
Comment fired by BuckyG — July 8, 2008- 7:32 pm
We have yet to find a reason to delete posts, and hope not to do so. That sort of action always leads to trouble, so we prefer to let the conversation continue unless it’s fallen to nothing but name-calling, derision, and offensive behavior…in which case we’d likely just shut down the whole thread and be done with it.
On our far-right sidebar in the About Us section is a listing called “Policies” which expressly describes the behavior we expect of our readers who choose to post responses on our posts. We encourage everyone who posts comments on this post, or others, to review those policies and abide by them. This way, we won’t have to lay the smack-down on anyone here in open forum.
Comment fired by Joe & Linda — July 8, 2008- 8:02 pm
Bucky already said he can’t follow rules….
Comment fired by BLANE — July 8, 2008- 9:39 pm
Chuck - Longhorn Steakhouse just used the term “smokey chipotle” in a commercial.
Comment fired by Turk — July 8, 2008- 10:21 pm
Turk is getting 2% of all settlements.
Comment fired by Buddah — July 8, 2008- 10:36 pm
I wish but I have a feeling that Chuck is going to have a long and tough battle ahead of him before he sees any financial restitution. Just doing my part to take down Da Man.
Comment fired by Turk — July 8, 2008- 10:49 pm
I kind of skimmed over the comments…is there any update to this matter? Is there a possibility Yum Brands might settle with Chuck?
Comment fired by Scott Roberts — December 14, 2008- 11:32 pm
“is there any update to this matter? Is there a possibility Yum Brands might settle with Chuck?”
I haven’t heard anything as of yet, but I’ve been way to busy with reviews to write a follow up ro check with Chuck.
Comment fired by Jonathan Passow — December 15, 2008- 9:12 am
My uncle made millions suing Pizza Hut for patent infringement. Pizza Hut contracted his company to produce sausage pellets. He had a patent on a process that made more natural looking pellets, not the rabbit droppings that were popular at the time. Pizza Hut terminated the contract and then had a cheaper national meat company reproduce their patented machinery. It took a little over a decade for the case to go to trial and receive a settlement.
Comment fired by Derby — January 3, 2009- 9:14 am