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: , , , ,
Companies: taco bell, taco john's

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Taco Bell Seeks To Liberate ‘Taco Tuesday’ For Itself, The Masses”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
69 Comments
This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
James Burkhardt (profile) says:

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.

Rocky says:

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.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

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.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

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.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:8

What the fuck is Bayside Advisory?

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.

And Mike Masniack’s (you know, the guy who runs this site) stated position is that copyright should be done away with

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.

a utopia of massively powerful companies and individuals not abusing their power and influence because… [vague handwavy gestures]

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.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

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.”

Anonymous Coward says:

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.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

“I can’t tell the difference between someone’s name and something they said on one occasion”

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?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

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.

Steele (user link) says:

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.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

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

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...