Taco Bell Seeks To Liberate ‘Taco Tuesday’ For Itself, The Masses
from the for-whom-the-bell-tolls dept
There is a long history of trademark silliness concerning the phrase “Taco Tuesday.” As with many trademark stories, the original sin in all of this was committed by the USPTO , which in the ’80s somehow managed to grant the Taco John’s chain a trademark on the term, despite it being both very descriptive and, after years of lax enforcement, absolutely generic at present. What you will find missing in the stories that we’ve done on this topic in the past is an entity with real weight behind it attempting to invalidate Taco John’s trademark entirely. Sure, everyone from restaurant trade associations to LeBron James (seriously!) have gotten involved, but what we need here is a good old fashioned Goliath to come and stamp out David when he’s misbehaving.
Enter Taco Bell. The largest player in the Americanized Mexican food market has finally entered the fray and has petitioned the Trademark Office directly to invalidate the mark.
The taco chain filed a petition Tuesday (naturally) with the US Patent and Trademark office to cancel the trademark, owned by rival Taco John’s for 34 years, because Taco Bell claims the commonly used phrase “should be freely available to all who make, sell, eat and celebrate tacos.”
The use of the phrase “potentially subjects Taco Bell and anyone else who wants to share tacos with the world to the possibility of legal action or angry letters if they say ‘Taco Tuesday’ without express permission from [Taco John’s] — simply for pursuing happiness on a Tuesday,” the filing said.
It’s a little cheeky, to be sure, but the meat of the requests relies on solid complaints about the mark. The term is at least partially descriptive: deals for tacos on Tuesdays. And even if it isn’t descriptive enough to be denied a trademark, the term certainly has become so widely used and generic at this point, at least in part due to lax policing from Taco John’s, that it should be invalidated.
The very idea that a taco joint anywhere in America cannot run sales, advertising, or promotions for their own “taco Tuesdays” is a blatant violation of the purpose of trademark law. Nobody is going to see an advertisement for Taco Tuesdays at Taco Bell and somehow think Taco John’s is involved. That is purely due to how the public sees the term. Again, this is a clear indicator that the mark should be done away with.
Taco John’s has 40 days to file a response, and if the two chains can’t reach an agreement, the case will move to a discovery period where each company can make document requests and present evidence stating their case. Following that would be a trial and oral arguments presented in front of the board’s judges.
According to Gerben, Taco Bell has a “strong case” because US trademark law “prevents the registration of common phrases or phrases that become commonplace after a registration is granted.” In this instance, the slogan “has become a cultural phenomenon with a long history of being used by individuals and companies other than the current owner of the trademark,” he told CNN.
And therefore never send to know for whom the Taco Tuesday bell tolls, Taco John’s; it tolls for thee.
Filed Under: taco tuesday, tacos, trademark, tuesdays, uspto
Companies: taco bell, taco john's
Comments on “Taco Bell Seeks To Liberate ‘Taco Tuesday’ For Itself, The Masses”
Every time a giant corporation is the “good guy” in a lawsuit, I die a little inside. 🙃
Re:
That’s just a reflection of how fucked up some things are, especially when it comes to the laws pertaining to “intellectual property”.
I admit my Bible-learnin’ is a little rusty but I’m, like, 75% sure that’s not how that story goes.
Re:
Well…
my Bible-learnin’ be super rusty, but even I’m certain it wasn’t Goliath who rose from the dead to punish David on the occasions when he DID…
(A zombie Goliath exacting revenge on David would be hilarious though!)
Re: Re:
11/10, would watch.
That final line is terrible, and you should feel bad.
As somebody who actually prefers Taco John’s over Taco Bell….
Fuck Taco John’s Taco Tuesday!
Not that anybody really gives a shit about what I think though…..
Re: Taco John's is better
I grew up in Cheyenne, the home of Taco John’s. Taco Tuesday was always a thing growing up. My nostalgia aside, it looks like this has to go. Somehow, I imagine people will still buy fast food tacos and in places with both chains people will have their favorites.
Re: Re:
Taco Johns can still have taco tuesdays. The removal of the trademark doesn’t mean taco johnson can’t have taco tuesdays. It’s a mark tgat should never have been granted, and even if it was a valid mark, Taco Johns peacefully coexisted with other Taco Tuesdays for years. If taco johns is better than other local options, i’m sure it’s taco tuesday will win out in the marketplace.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
And in about 8 hours Techdirt will publish another article pretending not to understand why companies vigorously police their trademarks.
Re:
Everyone knows why companies defends their trademarks, money. The problem is that some trademarks shouldn’t have been approved from the beginning, especially when it comes to something that already exists in common vernacular speech.
The absurdity of having a trademark on “Taco Tuesday” is that we then can also have a trademark on any day of the week as long as you have “Taco” preceding the name of the day, or any other word for that matter.
It’s clear you don’t understand that criticizing how trademarks are issued and policed by companies isn’t even remotely the same as not understanding why they do it.
Re: Re:
Did anyone expect the guy who took offense at Bayside Advisory being called “copyright law’s best and brightest” to do anything more than bitch and moan about Techdirt calling out intellectual property-based entities acting stupidly?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Go through Geitner’s articles and count how many times he claims not to understand why some company is enforcing their trademark. I’ll wait, but if you’re not back before 2033 I’m not sending a search party.
Re: Re: Re:
We really are back to the whole “if intellectual property doesn’t get its cock jacked off then the lawyers will rape us all” gimmick with you again, aren’t we?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Pretending to not understand people you disagree with doesn’t make you look smart, it makes you look like a disingenuous moron.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Every time you make fun of IP law a lawyer sues a grandma because you’re a minimalist.
Re: Re: Re:3
you are saying: pointing out abuse of power just makes the people with it abuse it more? That’s kind of an compelling argument. For curtailing the power.
Also: Grandma’s (or grandpa’s) are not inherently good. I don’t see anything wrong with them being sued for legitimate reasons. In the example they are being sued because someone unrelated did something. Nobody (regardless of age or if they have descendants) deserves that.
Re: Re: Re:3
Keep simping for those copyright troll feeling-weelings, man. Maybe when they come for you they’ll promise to use lube.
Re: Re: Re:
You don’t really understand rhetorical statements, do you?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Rhetoric is supposed to persuade. Tim is about as persuasive as a five year old trying to explain why it shouldn’t go to bed.
Re: Re: Re:3
You’re as persuasive as a slap to the face. If you think that fearmongering on behalf of trademark trolls will get them to stop by pandering to their demands, you’re a fool.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
Who’s fear mongering? My crticism is that Geigner’s schtick of “I don’t understand why trademark/copyright exists therefore it shouldn’t” is fucking stupid. He’s basically doing Tucker Carlson’s bit of pointing at other people’s reporting and saying “durrr, me no get it?”
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
Hang on, I get it now. Timmy isn’t actually analysing or reporting anything, he’s just leading the Two Minutes Hate for nerds who don’t want to pay for things. How depressing.
Re: Re: Re:6
I was wondering when we’d get to the “if you disagree with intellectual property being abused you must be a thief” arguments.
Those arguments didn’t work for John Steele when he tried to have Judge Otis Wright removed for allegedly not being friendly enough towards copyright.
Re: Re: Re:7
Who said anything about being a thief? I’m just observing that Mike’s replacement for copyright is for artists to give their work away for free and beg for scraps and eveyone here seems to be completely on board with that.
Re: Re: Re:8
Well, a lot of people are making money from the give it away for free, and rely on support for fans. The alternatives are to ask a legacy publisher to accept your work, or to market your own work via the likes of Amazon.
It is worth noting, that in most cases creating new works requires a day job or other means of providing the necessities of life. Making a living from creative works requires building a large enough fan base, and self publishers can make a living with a smaller fan base that those who find a publisher. The biggest hurdle to overcome in building that fan base is becoming known, where the give it away for free model works better that trying to convince people to buy without at least sampling the work, or getting a recommendation from someone whose tastes they trust.
Re: Re: Re:9
And yet when I ask someone to build my app for the exposure they have a fit. Weird.
Re: Re: Re:10
Sure, what’s your app? I’m sure you’re just falling over yourself to divulge personal information instead of running away when your bluff gets called out.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:11
It’s called Beg For Scraps And Starve and it posts Timothy Geigner’s books on torrent sites.
Re: Re: Re:12
And what address do I send the app and proceeds to?
Re: Re: Re:12
And… crickets.
Get owned, you goddamn copyright simp.
Re: Re: Re:5
In what articles have Geigner said that trademark/copyright shouldn’t exists? Feel free to give examples of this theme throughout all he has written.
Re: Re: Re:6
He’s not going to.
The same troll spent the Bayside Advisory post whining and grousing that Techdirt existing paints a big red target on the average person because copyright law gets made fun of. To him, this article doesn’t make fun of copyright – but he’ll point to all the other articles published on Techdirt that have critiqued copyright or IP law, no matter how minor or justified.
It’s frankly sad to see someone so poisoned by copyright trolls they have to actively simp for them, but as Nina Paley once said, copyright is brain damage.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7
What the fuck is Bayside Advisory?
And Mike Masniack’s (you know, the guy who runs this site) stated position is that copyright should be done away with and that somehow taking away one of the few things that allow creatives (who he appears to despise) to make money from their labour will somehow lead us into a utopia of massively powerful companies and individuals not abusing their power and influence because… [vague handwavy gestures].
But whatever, read your Daily Mail for ancap dweebs. I’m sure Mike will let you suck it if you meet him.
Re: Re: Re:8
Do often believe in your own lies? It may indicate you are out of touch with factual reality.
Re: Re: Re:8
…said nobody not admitting to their hallucinogen habits, ever.
Re: Re: Re:8
One of various entities who thought they could use copyright law as a bludgeon to shut down criticism they disliked. But you knew that already.
Have you considered that if you relied on copyright law so badly, you’d be annoyed at folk abusing it beyond the reaches of creative protection?
You know, the sort of argument you keep putting forward. Behave, or your get your privileges taken away. But no, all you can do is piss, bitch, moan and whine when the misdeeds of vested copyright interests get reported on.
Like the one we have now, you mean? Where Richard Liebowitz used copyright law to get Leonard French’s YouTube channel shut down because Leonard reported on his disbarring and judicial offenses?
Perhaps if you wanted people to take your copyright seriously, you would have exercised your enforcement more judiciously, instead of bullying children for your meal ticket.
Re: Re: Re:2
BDAC has never shown any understanding of anything.
Re: Re: Re:3
Did I get a hate name already? I’m touched. What does BDAC mean though?
Re: Re: Re:
…hallucinated nobody mentally competent, ever.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
[citation needed]
Re: Re: Re:3
You are the citation.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
…hallucinated nobody mentally competent, ever.
Re: Re: Re:5
Not surprised that you prove with your trademark uninspired projection that as the troll too illiterate to grasp Tim’s writing, you also lack any concept of context as well.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
…hallucinated nobody mentally competent, ever.
Re: Re: Re:7
Reply if your only goal is to keep proving me right like that.
Re:
A company must police its marks, of course. But they should not be overzealous about it. Most companies, especially larger ones, have well-paid lawyers that can look at a mark’s use and say, “nope, that’s not infringing, leave it alone.” Also, under-policing does not necessarily mean that the company hasn’t done its due diligence in maintaining its rights.
As one judge put it: “The owner of a mark is not required to constantly monitor every nook and cranny of the entire nation and to fire both barrels of his shotgun instantly upon spotting a possible infringer.”
Re: Re:
And what makes you think the CEOs will listen to their lawyers?
I mean, Elon Musk exists.
Re: Re: Re:
People like Elon notwithstanding, I would think in most cases it goes like this:
CEO: Someone is infringing our trademark! Sue them!
Lawyer: Oooh, billable hours. On it!
If ethics were actually a thing:
CEO: Someone is infringing our trademark! Sue them!
Lawyer: What they’re doing doesn’t infringe the trademark. If we sue them, it’ll cost a lot of money, make us look bad, and we’ll probably lose anyway.
CEO: I don’t care, sue them!
Lawyer: Hey if you want to sue them, go right ahead. But I won’t take the case.
Re: Re: Re:
If all else fails, courts exist.
Re: Re: Re:
So your solution is to keep caving to their demands and pray that they eventually go easy on you?
Re: Re: Re:2
Look, I said CEOs don’t listen to their lawyers.
And the courts can only do so much.
I’d rather do things legally rather than violently, but if even the courts don’t care.
Re: Re: Re:3
Joke’s on you, copyright-types aren’t the kind to stick to “doing things legally” for long.
Re: Re:
Common items shouldn’t be marked in the first place. Which would cut down on the “need” for policing.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Oh look, a random commentator displaying a better understanding of the issue than Timmy “I can’t tell the difference between someone’s name and something they said on one occasion” Geigner.
Re: Re: Re:
People get remembered for stupid shit they do all the time.
If you don’t want to be remembered for that then don’t do stupid shit. This is lesson 101 you learn when you’re a kid.
Why the fuck do intellectual property fanboys deserve a free pass?
What about their other one “Run for the Border”? They NEED to protect that one, because if it’s Taco Bell, there WILL be some running going on at some point…or at least “the runs”.
Wait, are we actually rooting for Taco Bell to win the franchise wars?
The mind boggles.
Re:
This has nothing to do with a “franchise war” and everything to do with invalidating a trademark that shouldn’t have been granted in the first place. And I don’t like being on the side of a massive restaurant conglomerate any more than you do—but in this case, that conglomerate is in the right.
Re:
Pizza Hut wins the franchise wars in every rip I’ve downloaded. Despite the Taco Bell logo on the window, and the comically bad overdubbing.
Re: Re:
Right, the US release had it as Taco Bell, but the European release made it Pizza Hut. They are both owned by the same conglomerate!
Re:
In 2032 San Angeles, Taco Bell was the only restaurant to survive the Franchise Wars. So, all restaurants will be Taco Bell.
If keeping Taco Tuesday locked up is a marketing move by Taco John’s, then they failed. My east-coast self has never heard of Taco John’s outside this article.
Taco Tuesday
It’s fascinating to see the intricate history surrounding the trademark “Taco Tuesday” and the surprising chain of events that led to Taco John’s obtaining the trademark. While it may have seemed like a misstep by the USPTO at the time, it’s encouraging to witness the evolution of public perception regarding this term.
Re:
Yeah, an article about that might have been interesting.
Time for a montage!
If this makes it to discovery, all the Taco Bell folks need to do is play a montage of all the times cartoons and sitcoms use the term “taco Tuesday” to demonstrate it’s ubiquitous, and has nothing to do with Taco John’s.
Re:
Did someone say montage?
Re:
They could probably do a montage of random photos from the 80s and earlier where the phrase “taco tuesday” is already ubiquitous.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Sheila Raheja Institute of Hotel Management Recruitment
Exciting opportunity! Sheila Raheja Institute of Hotel Management is now hiring. If you have a passion for the hospitality industry, this could be your chance to shine. Don’t miss out on this amazing recruitment drive. Apply now and showcase your skills. Good luck to all the applicants! #Recruitment #SheilaRahejaInstituteofHotelManagement