Dear friends
I write to you now on matter of grave importance. Had you the means or desire to hear these words spoken from my lips you would sense already the solemnity which grips my person, for what I am about to tell you has rocked me to my soul.
On Tuesday last I was strolling gaily (that means happily, I ain’t a battyman) through the fens of Brixton Town, lapping up the sun and enjoying the hit from the rock I’d just devoured. My pristine moment was rudely interrupted by an urgent need to defecate and with no suitable containers handy I was forced to make an unplanned diversion into KFC.
Having relieved myself of my heavy burden – and having taken the time to mop the floor – I exited with haste, but not before glancing instinctively at the array of delectables on offer. It was then that the horror struck.
Right beneath ‘Bargain Bucket’ and just above ‘Variety Bucket’ were the words ‘Family Feast’. It cannot be. Could the Colonel really have the temerity, nay the bald-faced cheek, to endow his family-sized feast with name ‘Family Feast’?
The Colonel had in fact gone further than that. Not only has he called his family feast ‘Family Feast’, he has actually trademarked the name. In other words, I would be in breach of the law if I decided to name my own family-sized meal the ‘Family Feast’ and then advertise it to the public.
But surely this is only a technicality. KFC would not actually deploy a crack squad of menu spies to filter back information about small, family-owned businesses and potential breaches of trademark, would they? Actually, it would appear that that is exactly what they do. And they are not alone.
McDonald’s have been embroiled in a number of legal battles to ensure their treasured brand name is not exploited. In some cases, however, this has resulted in them challenging companies with legitimate claims to trademarked names, such as the case of Norman McDonald, who was forced to change the name of his Kentucky diner from "McDonald's Hamburgers" to "Norman McDonald's Hamburgers", so as to avoid confusing the American public. (I suppose this is easily done).
To be fair, although I do not necessarily support McDonald’s case, I can understand the reasoning, for Norman McDonald, having erected replica golden arches (which he was forced to take down), was clearly trying to cash in on the McDonald’s brand.
What possible reason could there be, however, for attempting to deprive a family business of an item name on their menu? Did KFC really think they were trying to hoodwink the public? Did they think they were making megabucks out of the remarkably unremarkable, ‘Family Feast’?
What’s more incredible is that this is the second time KFC has attempted to remove the name from the menu of an independent food outlet - and failed. Did they not learn anything the first time?
No comments:
Post a Comment