
Sriracha CEO on why he chose not to trademark the brand - fredley
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150212/07144630001/sriracha-boss-trademark-mmmmm-no-thanks.shtml
======
basseq
Tran has always had the zen and art of business administration on lock.

"Hot sauce must be hot. If you don't like it hot, use less," he said. "We
don't make mayonnaise here."

He might have capitalized on the market by releasing a blander sauce, but he's
doing just fine without it, so why compromise?

This is off-topic, but I caught hung up in the first sentence when the author
mentions he has a place in his fridge for hollandaise sauce. Hollandaise sauce
is good for 24-48 hours, even refrigerated. Dude must eat eggs benedict for
every meal.

~~~
negrit
Sriracha used to be a lot more hot. The problem is that if it's too hot then
you use less then you eat less then you buy less.

Pretty sure he had to do a compromise to increase sales.

~~~
eric_h
I thought that sriracha was very hot when I first tried it. I quickly became
addicted to the stuff and pretty rapidly developed a strong tolerance for the
heat. I suspect the same happened to you, I don't actually think he changed
the formula.

------
pcthrowaway
Sriracha is a type of sauce named after the coastal city of Si Racha in
eastern Thailand [1] originating in the 1930s.

Did the author of this article not bother doing a Wikipedia search on the
subject of their article?

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sriracha_sauce](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sriracha_sauce)

~~~
matthewmcg
Right--there's actually a principle in U.S. trademark law[1] that can prevent
registration of a trademark if it has a generic meaning in a foreign language.

As one court[2] explained: "Because of the diversity of the population of the
United States, coupled with temporary visitors, all of whom are part of the
United States marketplace, commerce in the United States utilizes innumerable
foreign languages. No merchant may obtain the exclusive right over a trademark
designation if that exclusivity would prevent competitors from designating a
product as what it is in the foreign language their customers know best."

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_foreign_equivalents](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_foreign_equivalents)

[2] [http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-
circuit/1211778.html](http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1211778.html)

~~~
tlrobinson
But is Sriracha actually a type of sauce in Thailand, or is it just the name
of a city? If it's the latter I don't think this would apply.

~~~
aroch
Both, but only because the US-made Sriracha sauce is imported by the ton.

~~~
jahewson
No... read the Wikipedia article linked to above, Siracha is believed to have
been created in Si Racha in the 1930s.

~~~
coralreef
Theres a documentary about Sriracha which looks into the origins:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXOAx58LBDo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXOAx58LBDo)

Basically its not clear where the origin is.

------
9point6
"And he can't be bothered to give any shits about trademarking it today
because he's too busy raking in roughly all the money."

What a car-crash of a sentence.

~~~
Borogravia
Strongly disagree. Inelegant, but effective.

~~~
jonnathanson
It would be a lot more effective if it were elegant. The colloqualisms
shoehorned into that sentence do it no favors.

~~~
blakeja
Welcome to the rest of the world where people talk that way everywhere,
everyday.

~~~
jonnathanson
It's not about the use of those phrases; it's about the way he integrates them
into the sentence. It's clumsy.

When I use the word "elegant" here, I don't mean it in the sense of formality
of language. I mean it in the sense of conveying a point as clearly and
economically as possible. The biggest problem with his sentence is that it's
overloaded with baggage. It reads as if the author liked the sound of a couple
of fun phrases, then crammed them into the sentence.

------
shittyanalogy
Huy Fong Foods is the brand, sriracha is the product. It's because he likes
the fact that he created a new condiment and is satisfied with his current
wealth and business size.

~~~
hawleyal
Sriracha is the product brand (e.g. Mountain Dew). Huy Fong Foods is the
manufacturer brand (e.g. Pepsico). But like kleenex and saran wrap, it has
become a generic term. Sriracha is a proper noun, but is slowly becoming a
common noun.

~~~
spike021
It's gotten to the point where there are numerous competitors, some of whom
produce bottles that look exactly the same except for two things: a yellow cap
instead of green and a slightly different label/print of the logo and other
information.

~~~
scelerat
I think packaging falls under the rubric of "trade dress" \-- different than
trademarks, which generally involves words and symbols.

So if a competitor is selling red hot sauce in a bottle shaped just like a Huy
Fong Sriracha bottle, along with similar writing, Huy Fong might have a case
for challenging that, regardless of whether the competing product says
"Sriracha" on it or displays the symbol of a rooster.

------
will_brown
I understand the sentiment of the article, and the business strategy could be
the most lucrative; however, the article itself suggests none of the players,
author included, actually understand trademark law.

A few of the legal issues I spot include: 1.) Though not registered with USPTO
the original Sriracha manufacturers may have certain common law trademark
rights as the first to enter the stream of commerce; 2.) that in theory
nothing would have prohibited the trademarking of Sriracha while
simultaneously providing a free limited license allowing competitors to use
the mark; and 3.) the article seems to suggest it would have been possible for
someone to come along after the original Sriracha and trademark the name, then
prohibit the use of Sriracha by the original company.

------
3pt14159
Take a look at the Tabasco sauce in question:

[http://countrystore.tabasco.com/TABASCOsupreg_sup-
Sriracha-S...](http://countrystore.tabasco.com/TABASCOsupreg_sup-Sriracha-
Sauce/productinfo/03829/)

That is some pretty similar branding.

~~~
wlesieutre
Trader Joe's uses a clear bottle with a green cap and white printing. Dragon
instead of a rooster, but it's way more similar than Tabasco's version.

[https://eatingatjoes.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/trader-
joes...](https://eatingatjoes.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/trader-joes-
sriracha-sauce.jpg)

It's also terrible. At least when I tried it last year. Too sweet.

~~~
BrainInAJar
I don't understand why that exists. Store brands are for making things cheaper
at comparable quality. Even if we want to accept that TJ's sriracha is of the
same quality, proper Sriracha is absurdly cheap. You can buy a 6 month supply
for a couple bucks, even if you use it for everything

------
tlrobinson
What they should really trademark (if they haven't) is the bottle.

~~~
cwyers
The rooster logo on the bottle IS trademarked.

~~~
jobu
Several people I know call it Cock Sauce because of the rooster as a double
entendre.

------
Kiro
Sorry but Sriracha for breakfast?

~~~
cmiles74
Put it on the eggs; scrambled, fried, whatever.

