After drawing backlash, Dave Chang released a special podcast episode to explain his side of the chile crunch trademark controversy
Last week, chef Dave Chang drew ire across the food community after the Guardian reported that Momofuku, the packaged goods brand that Chang spun out of his popular restaurants, had begun to enforce its trademark on the term “chile crunch” and was sending cease-and-desist letters to small business selling items labeled “chile crunch” and “chili crunch,” including the brands Homiah and MìLà. (Momofuku does not currently have the trademark for “chili crunch” but filed paperwork toward that goal in late March.)
For many members of the Asian American food community, Momofuku’s actions were proof that Chang — who attained his stature largely by selling Asian food to non-Asian audiences — not only misunderstood chile crisp and crunch as foundational Chinese ingredients but was now also using his success to shut the door on other Asian entrepreneurs. As Jing Gao, founder of Fly by Jing, wrote on LinkedIn: “This kind of action, if successful, sets a dangerous precedent for the squashing of fair competition, not to mention how ridiculous it is to try and take ownership of a generic cultural term.”
On April 12, Chang released an episode of his podcast The Dave Chang Show apologizing and responding to the chile crunch debacle — by announcing that Momofuku will no longer enforce the trademark. On the episode, he’s joined by Momofuku CEO Marguerite Mariscal. Here’s what you need to know.
1. Chang claims that Momofuku named its product chile crunch specifically because it was not chile crisp
It was “out of deference to ‘chile crisp,’ which we associated as Chinese — specifically Chinese, specifically carved out by [the popular brand] Lao Gan Ma,” Chang says. He explains that his goal with Momofuku’s chile crunch was not to create something “authentically Chinese” but to merge chile sauce, Lao Gan Ma, salsa macha, and salsa seca, and to create a name that indicated its difference. “We named it ‘chile crunch’ out of respect and deference to Chinese heritage and Chinese food culture, not to take,” Chang reiterates.
2. Chang attributes part of the debacle to a misunderstanding of language
“Had I known, or Momofuku known, that ‘chile crunch’ was a tautology — basically the same as ‘chile crisp’ — we would never have named it ‘chile crunch.’” Chang expresses regret that Momofuku’s action could be read as “taking Chinese cultural heritage from people.”
3. Mariscal and Chang say that the plan moving forward is to not enforce or police the trademark
“Our activity here — our choice — is to do nothing. That is our action: inactivity, no enforcement, no policing of this trademark,” Chang says. This, they say, opens Momofuku up to the risk that another, bigger company could make a play for the trademark; more on that below.
4. Mariscal explains that the original trademark enforcement was a protective move
After Momofuku purchased the “chile crunch” trademark from Chile Colonial, a Colorado-based company that began selling a Mexican-inspired crunchy chile condiment in 2008, “it then became our job to protect it.” She says: “If you don’t show the US PTO (Patent and Trademark Office) that you’re routinely defending your mark — and that’s from any size business, large, small, regardless; they don’t differentiate — then you’re at risk of losing your trademark.” Given their decision to not defend their held trademark, another company could theoretically assert a right to “chili crunch” down the line.
5. Chang compares his situation to The One Ring in Lord of the Rings
“We can’t give it away and we can’t destroy it,” he says of the trademark.
“We as a business can’t decide what is and what isn’t a trademark,” Mariscal says. “But what we can do is control how we operate and how we act as the person who has this mark.”
from Eater - All https://ift.tt/eR0G9u5
0 Comments