The name Taylor is not in dispute. The fact that they hold a trademark on “Taylor Ham” doesn’t seem to mean much if they can’t, and do not, use the name on their product. I fail to see the relevancy. “Taylor Ham” simply does not exist as a product. If you can prove otherwise, please do.
It used to exist, and the change is mentioned here: https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F/0180/001/00000951.txt
Please read above carefully. In order to be able to register the mark at the trademark office Taylor have to currently sell product with the trademark “Taylor Ham” on it. So Taylor is actually using it on product they continue to sell today.
The case you cite to is dated 1910, have you checked to see if it is still valid? Also the holding in the case, if you read it carefully, is that “pork roll” can’t be trademarked.
Finally, you need to distinguish between trademark law and USDA labeling restrictions under the Pure Food and Drug Act. They are two different things.
The FDA restriction is dated 1906, while the trademark “Taylor Ham” issued in 1959. So I bet if you check carefully the FDA is no longer asserting that any reasonable person would confuse Taylor Ham with the real thing.
There are lots of apocryphal stories out there floating in the news media about the 1906 case, since this makes for a good story, so it is easy to get confused.
By the way, if you read the article carefully by Edelstein that you originally cited in defense of your proposition that Taylor Ham is not a brand name, Edelstein clearly indictates that Taylor IS a brand name:
http://www.trentonian.com/article/TT/20140318/NEWS/140319799
Beginning of 9th para, begin 3d sentence: “Taylor is a brand…”
JY[quote=“VikingKaj, post:22, topic:5572”]
Please read above carefully. In order to be able to register the mark at the trademark office Taylor have to currently sell product with the trademark “Taylor Ham” on it. So Taylor is actually using it on produc
[/quote]
Not taking sides, but have an OCD-ish question. I know a product has to be in use (trade) to “get” a trademark registered BUT what does the law say about whether it can still be held if (how long) the product may be in use but not showing that mark? I believe the trademark continues but can be challenged by someone else if not used. In this case the FDA would supposedly prohibit anyone else from using the word ‘ham’ on a product like this.
Just my thought on this. Anyone know for sure?
I have no interest in arguing. I’ll make it simple. I’ve lived in NJ my entire life. About 50 people in this state call it taylor ham. Done
By the way to me the answer is neither.
I tend to think of this product as Spam by another name, since that’s what it tastes like to me.
And yes, Spam is someone else’s registered trademark.
The debate is becoming unproductive. Locking thread.
