"No trademark" is misleading. They have trademarks. Without them I expect exact clones would take their sales. The bottle and logo are quite distinctive and trademarked. The thing they didn't trademark is the name Sriracha.
Also the thread mentioned they've protected the squeeze bottle with green cap design which I think only applies to the US. For instance in Europe most Asia stores stock 'goose brand' sriracha which apart from the animal look almost identical[1]. Got burned by that myself a while ago when the whole sriracha craze started online and I mistakenly bought a bottle of the goose brand stuff.
Fellow German here who gets angry about the Flying Goose brand whenever I go into an Asian store: It’s not the same. Huy Fong Foods is much better and has much fewer additives.
The goose brand is less spicy and is WAY sweeter. I had my family in the states send me some of the Huy Fong stuff because I couldn't stand the sweetness of the goose brand.
Tastes the same to me. If at all the goose brand is slightly less spicy by default. Thanks to covid did not have the chance to do a cross check lately...
I'm ok with the Goose too. The green capped, the red capped I can tolerate, but it can be a bit much for me. Recently tried a so called 'A-One' with extra garlic(pink capped, 500ml) and it has been so so. Won't buy again.
Here in Finland I can buy proper Huy Fong Sriracha in the grocery store. A few different flavors and types, too.
Edit: I am wrong on the internet. I just checked my bottle in the fridge and it is GoTan [1] Sriracha, from the Netherlands. With a green cap, too. I feel kinda ripped off, tbh.
The green cap meant that beautiful Huy Fong Sriracha, which has no mayo, but it's so distinctive that other manufacturers copied it, presumably to fool gullible people like myself
Are you sure it's illegal in the EU? Pretty much any wine sold adds sulfites to stop the fermentation process. AFAIK all that's required is that they're labelled as containing sulfites.
The way it works is that they impose a default ban, and then you can apply for an exemption for your specific product category. Wine has an exemption, sauces and condiments do not. Why the EU would quickly make sure wine got an exemption and wasn't impacted in any way, and not do the same for hot sauces is a mystery for the ages.
"Sriracha" couldn't be trademarked because it is the name of the sauce. It's like someone trying to trademark "Kansas City style Barbeque Sauce" -- can't be done.
I don't know much about trademark but I know of this company called Apple. Would Apple be blocked from trademarking it's name if it sold actual Apples instead of computers?
> Would Apple be blocked from trademarking it's name if it sold actual Apples instead of computers?
Yes. In the US, if Apple sold apples, its name would be classified as descriptive and they would not have any exclusive right to that mark when selling apples. Other companies could also label their apples with "apple" and Apple could not stop them.
This is true, but the situation was Apple (the computer company) moved into the music business with iTunes; Apple (the record company) was already long established. Apple (the record company) was the plaintiff trying to block Apple (the computer company).
My (limited) knowledge is solely of US law, but different companies with the same trademark can coexist in different industries, e.g. Delta (the airline) and Delta (the faucet company).
It happened twice actually. Apple (the record company) sued Apple (the computer company) back in the 80's. The judgement then was that the computer company could keep using their name so long as they never enter the music business. Then they released iPod & iTunes, and got sued again for breach of their court-mediated agreement. The record company won a settlement IIRC.
yep, those are over here too, and they're all underwhelming. I don't think I've actively purchased any, but somehow I've sampled many of them. Maybe at restaurants that cut corners, maybe at friends houses. All were subpar in my tastes.
Only those with trade deals and registered GI in place obviously. I wouldn't mind if name sriracha would be some guarantee for origin and recipe, but alas, Thailand would of course need to demand that first.
Note: I don't know much about sriracha so no idea if Thai people consider it to be a traditional local stuff or not.
Why would Thailand need to demand that when it is a California invention?
To be clear, there is no “Sriracha” sauce in Thailand. At best there is a spicy pepper and vinegar blend which some cuisine uses, but it’s nothing like the California-made Sriracha sauce, and it is not called Sriracha (or Sri Racha) AFAIK.
Where I live, a lot of SE Asian restaurants will give the original red dipping sauce for certain dishes which it is meant for, and it is nothing like Sriracha. Different pepper, different color, way sweeter, very little acidity.
Sriracha as you know it is a Los Angeles invention by an intrepid culinary entrepreneur. It resembles actual Thai sauce about as much as Kraft “American cheese” [sic] does a good English cheddar. (Although unlike this comparison, Sriracha arguably improved on the original.)
> It resembles actual Thai sauce about as much as Kraft “American cheese” [sic] does a good English cheddar. (Although unlike this comparison, Sriracha arguably improved on the original.)
Thai people hate the americanized version of sriracha, so I guess your comparison is right that Huy Fong Foods sriracha is like the Kraft “American cheese”.
If it isn't even made with the same ingredients, how can it be related by anything but name?
I've traveled to Thailand quite a few times and AFAIK the sauce is not called "Sri Racha" there. The American sauce is just named after a town from a region that is known for spicy sauces generally. So they don't even share a name.
It think it's like Döner Kebap. Created by turkish emigrants in exile, unknown in Turkey up to that point in time, then re-imported back there because it was trendy.
Trademark treats this as a crime against the original producer. Pretending to be that producer to fool the consumer into buying your product is a crime against the buyer known as fraud. IANAL and I don't know whether in a legal environment with trademark that form of fraud is recognized as such, but it should be and I think it would be a superior solution to the problem trademark is meant to solve.
It doesn't seem to apply in this particular case, but it's also important to note that having a trademark is different from having a registered trademark.
