![\"Fried-Chicken-Leg\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/abovethelaw.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/05\/Fried-Chicken-Leg-300x187.jpg?resize=300%2C187&ssl=1\" "\\"\\"")
I\u2019ll preface this post by saying a part of me hates writing posts like this. We recently talked about a\u00a0trademark lawsuit<\/a>\u00a0brought by KFC against Church\u2019s Chicken centered on Church\u2019s advertisements of a return to its \u201coriginal recipe\u201d for some of its chicken. Powering the suit was the trademark KFC has on the term \u201cOriginal Recipe\u201d. As I outlined in the original post, this trademark granted by the USPTO way back in the 1970s never should have been a thing. It\u2019s generic, it\u2019s descriptive, and it\u2019s all the moreso both when you consider that it was granted for the restaurant market.<\/p>\nSo why do I partially hate writing posts like this one? Well, because we recently got news that\u00a0KFC has dropped the suit entirely<\/a>, citing that it reached an amicable resolution with Church\u2019s. My frustration stems entirely from the completely opaque nature of whatever that resolution is. Here is the entirely of what we know:<\/p>\n um! Brands\u2019 KFC\u00a0(YUM.N), opens new tab<\/a>\u00a0told a Texas federal court on Tuesday that it would end its lawsuit over rival fast-food chain Church\u2019s Texas Chicken\u2019s use of its trademarked phrase \u201cOriginal Recipe\u201d in advertising.<\/em><\/p>\n KFC and Church\u2019s said they \u201camicably resolved\u201d the dispute in a statement provided by a KFC spokesperson on Tuesday. KFC\u00a0asked the court to dismiss the case, opens new tab<\/a>\u00a0without prejudice, which means it could refile the lawsuit later.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n So, since there doesn\u2019t appear to be any public information as to what the resolution was to this, all I can really do is speculate. So speculate I shall!<\/p>\n If I had to place any bets, I would bet that Church\u2019s lawyers explained to KFC that its use was generic and descriptive in nature, thereby\u00a0not<\/em>\u00a0being trademark infringement. I would bet as well that Church\u2019s legal team pointed out that if this suit were to continue it would consider petitioning to have KFC\u2019s \u201cOriginal Recipe\u201d trademark canceled for the same reasons. I would further guess that KFC got Church\u2019s to agree to only use the term in these same descriptive and generic ways, in order to make this suit go away.<\/p>\n Why is that what I think happened? A couple of reasons. First, settlements like this, even those with terms not made publicly, often come with at least the news that the defendant will change its use of trademarked terms in question. That doesn\u2019t seem to be in any of the announcements about this settlement. There\u2019s no reason for it not to be; everyone will notice if Church\u2019s suddenly rips down all the signage that advertises its original recipe.<\/p>\n Second is the dismissal without prejudice. That leads me to believe that Church\u2019s agreed not to use the language in ways beyond what it has to date, in terms of it being descriptive and generic in nature. This allows KFC to file suit again if Church\u2019s goes beyond that.<\/p>\n Admittedly, as stated, that is all pure speculation. I guess in the meantime I\u2019ll just have to walk by my local Church\u2019s Chicken and see what the signs say. But for now, this lawsuit is dead.<\/p>\n KFC Abrubptly Drops \u2018Original Recipe\u2019 Tradeamark Suit Against Church\u2019s Chicken<\/a><\/p>\n More Law-Related Stories From Techdirt:<\/strong><\/p>\n Wyden Again Warns That \u2018SS7\u2019 Telecom Flaw Lets Foreign Countries Broadly Spy On American Communications<\/a> From the chickening-out dept The post KFC Abrubptly Drops \u2018Original Recipe\u2019 Tradeamark Suit Against Church\u2019s Chicken appeared first on Above the Law. I\u2019ll preface this post by saying a part of me hates writing posts like this. We recently talked about a\u00a0trademark lawsuit\u00a0brought by KFC against Church\u2019s Chicken centered on Church\u2019s advertisements of a return […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":0,"featured_media":98273,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,17],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-98272","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law","category-legal_matters"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/xira.com\/p\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/Fried-Chicken-Leg-zayZEM.jpeg?fit=2183%2C1359&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/98272","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=98272"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/98272\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/98273"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=98272"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=98272"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=98272"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n
SCOTUS Turns TikTok Ban Case Into TikTok-Style Short Attention Span Theater<\/a>
Another DOJ Investigation Of A Cop Shop Finds Multiple Rights Violations<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"