Tabasco in hot fight with Mexican restaurant over name
Associated Press
Feb. 14, 2005 08:55 AM
There’s a hot dispute between the makers of Tabasco sauce and an Iowa Mexican restaurant.
Hot sauce maker the McIlhenny Company is suing Tabasco’s Mexican Restaurant and Patio in Marion.
McIlhenny has used the trademark Tabasco to identify its spicy pepper sauce since 1868. But the restaurant owners say they named it after the state in southeastern Mexico.
They claim an apostrophe “s” in the restaurant’s name avoids infringing on the Tabasco trademark.
It’s not an argument McIlhenny is buying. Lawyers for the hot sauce marker want a judge to order the restaurant to get a new name, pay damages and destroy everything with using the word Tabasco.
16 responses to “Tabasco Restaurant Being Sued By Hot Sauce Maker”
It is too bad. I would like to see the Mexican State sue Tobasco in that case. Dumb. I hate Huge corporate things like that.
Even if tobasco were to loose, something like that might force what is possibly a family business out of business. Worst part, Tobasco is sueing for DAMAGES! What fu**ing damages. Its free publicity and advertising they did not have to pay for.
I agree. Holy crap, they’re a bunch of @ssholes! There is actually a ‘Hard Rock Cafe’ here in a mining town in Colorado that’s been around forever and the big corporation tried to sue them just to find out the tiny cafe was around first! The law of use was on the small cafe’s side, but I don’t think they bothered with a countersuit. I would have, those are some deep pockets.
Anyone knowing the questionable history of McIllhenny would know that they have sued family-owned diners when their secret shoppers would go in and ask for “Tabasco”, and be given any other hot sauce.Does Kleenex do that? No.Does Xerox do that? No. Read those last two questions again to get my point. But a questionably rated hot sauce producer that has a world-wide grip on their market has and will continue to do that. Why? Good question. Support them by the purchase of their mass-produced product? I would hope hot sauce lovers will know the answer. Buy from respect, but from the hot-heads who give a shit about their product and consumers.
Well, it’s not quite that simple Pyrate. I’m no fan of lawsuits (having been sued myself) but this is called ‘defending your mark’ and you are LEGALLY REQUIRED to do so in order to maintain your mark. Mind you, there certainly are a lot different tactics available than suing small folks, but the point is- if they don’t defend their mark, then they lose it. They also do not profit from these lawsuits- unless someone is a flagrant violator and ignores LOTS of warnings, it simply results in a cease & desist. Lots of money is spent on lawyers without hope of recouping it- it’s viewed as a necessary business expense. It’s a two edged sword having a product that becomes so universally recognized and identified with a specific type of item as to be used popularly. Your two examples are a case in point. Xerox is a trade name that has gained such widespread recognition, it now means nearly any method of copying. They tried to defend their mark but it’s hard to defeat the general public 😉 Kleenex is another example. Nylon and Teflon are two more examples of things that were originally trademarked but gained such popular use as to loose most of their exclusivity. Fortunately, the chilehead world (and general public) is by no means ready to concede that ‘Tabasco’ means any ol’ hot sauce. I applaud the efforts of Mr McIlhenny to make sure that ‘Tabasco’ means ‘Tabasco’ and not say, my Ralph’s Righteous Habanero Sauce 😉
Message to the person in the comment number 4:
Who ever you are, you should learn that there is something beyond trademarks, and that is history. If you ignore it, you can visit this sauce web site ane to read the its history. Some Mr. MIIhennnny took not only the name, but the chiles from the state of Tabasco in Mexico that has more than 500 hundred years of existency. You can not speak if you ignore the subject. So, a native from Mexico or from Tabasco can use that name because it is previous to that very bad vinnagered sauce. Please inform your self!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#5- I think you are going to be hard pressed to find many people who are more informed 😉 Unfortunately, you are the one in need of a bit more education. History, and more importantly, *emotion* have nothing to do with the subject. He did not trademark the chile pepper- folks are free to use that name for the chiles they grow and there are no prohibitions against it. This was pretty well decided in the “Greenleaf Tabasco” fight where they tried to claim exclusivity of the name Tabasco in any application, including botany, and were denied based on the fact that it had a long previous history and is a well known chile. History means nothing though if a unique product is made from that item and is awarded protected status for that class. Your argument would mean that Kleenex and Puffs cannot claim a trademark for tissue paper because wood pulp has been around for thousands of years. Take a little closer look at the trademark laws and exactly how they apply in this instance, seeing what is protected use of the “Tabasco” name and more importantly what is *not* and then get back with me.
While I agree that Tabasco is kind of playing the bully in this case by going after one small restuarant I also agree with Jim they have the right and obligation to protect their trademarks but I do still hope they lose such a stupid lawsuit
chilewilly GO BUCKS
Someone send Defcon email addy to me at JJ’s. Thanks
[Comment ID #73145 Quote]
Well said Bret
McIlhenny doesn’t make hot sauce. It’s nothing but peppered salt water and vinegar.
[Comment ID #73153 Quote]
good point to bad they had to gow and trademark a pepper name for it kinda lowers the value of the tabasco pepper and apparently makes it a pain for anyone who’s actually from tabasco to use the name of their home state
Jim:
Obviously this issue it is not only a matter of law and you should know that. Especially, when we are talking about big companies that have the power to adjust the law to its best interest. If a judge takes only the law as it is currently established, probably they would give to the big company the victory and we would waste our time discussing about this issue. But judges have to take other considerations, in particular historical and ethical (or moral, for others) considerations.
In the ‘Tabasco Case’, there are a lot of things to say in the historical and ethical side. As I mentioned previously, the name Tabasco (related to the State of Mexico) has at least 500 years of existence. Bernal DÃaz del Castillo mentions the river with that name (Tabasco River) in his monumental work about the arrival of the Spaniards to the coast of the Gulf of Mexico. And it is a name originated from the word Taabscoob that was the name of one of the Calachonis (leaders) of the region. Tabasco, obviously is a castiglianization of Taabscoob. We are speaking of the beginning of the XVI century.
Now, the original story of the ‘Tabasco sauce’ (they have changed it recently in their web site, I don’t know if this change was because of the ‘Tabasco Case’ or for other reasons), they mention that some member of the family Mcilny or somebody related to them brought a chile from the southeast of Mexico (the web site says now that from Centro America, and where is Tabasco but in Central America?) and gave it to Mr. M…. (other version says that a soldier coming back from the invasion of Mexico in 1847 for the US Army, brought the chiles). In any case, somebody brought the chiles from Mexico. And, obviously again, has to be a chile from the State of Tabasco. What means that whoever brought it knew the State of Tabasco.
Let me tell you that there is not such a chile named Tabasco. It is scientifically named …
And naturally, the natives of the State of Tabasco Mexico give to this chile another name. And these sauce producers took the name after the State. So, there is prevalence of time for many years. And I’m sorry, you can not compare a name of a region with the name and product itself of a ….pulp. I understand that I can not use the name Xerox or to built my own company of. But a community of people and the name of that community have more historical background that a simple product. As you can see, Tabasco is not a chile, is the name a community of about one million people. A natural human thing is to feel a kind of proudness of the land where we were born. And we can see millions of examples not only in the US but all around the world of people naming their stores, delis, restaurants, etc., to homage their lands. A human feeling. Here is not necessary for me to give examples. You can find them watching from the window or opening the door of your house or walking to the next corner. Extending to an extreme the prohibition of not using the name of Tabasco for a desire of the sauce company would take us to craziness. Would they try to erase the name from this State of Mexico? This would be impossible, don’t you think so? The company should be the first to recognize its craziness.
We have to have these human considerations. Shouldn’t have them the judges?
P.S. And I agree with Richard, McIlhenny doesn´t make but vinegar, salt and some chile.
“castiglianization”, actually “Castillianization”.
Nice word! We’ll make it the official Word of the Day. 🙂
You want the truth? … You can’t handle the TRUTH. I’m guessing Jim is playing Jack Nicholson.
Felt like i was watching (reading) a deposition.
Well said Hectroy! Thanks for a calm dispassionate discussion of this topic. Unfortunately though, I think it *is* all about the law no matter how much I’d like to agree with you that it shouldn’t be. Ultimately, we are a nation of laws (for good or ill) and the law is quite clear on this matter. Another example used for clarity might be the “Bahama Breeze” restaraunt chain. It could well be that I am from the Bahamas, but if I go to open a store based on that name (Bahama Wind, for example) I can well expect to be taken to task for that, no matter the historical prior existance of the name “Bahama”. The uniqueness comes from the fact that I am using in conjunction with an eatery much as McIllhenny is in using it in conjunction with the sauce. I think you’d have to agree that Tabasco woudn’t be ‘Tabasco’ in this country if it weren’t for the sauce!
The fact that you state their is ‘no chile named Tabasco’ only goes to strengthen the claim they have upon the name as it can clearly then be argued that they orginated the use of “Tabasco” and “sauce” together.