Free Marmite From Countdown?

Forums › Off topic › Free Marmite From Countdown?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

wakaridnnz

226 posts

Master Geek

#784998 21-Mar-2013 14:33

I'm not too fussed about the whole charity/tax avoidance/frivolous litigation thing! but I don't remember Marmite being so sweet.

We bought a jar of Marmite yesterday for a taste comparison but I'm pretty sure we'll stick with Vegemite now purely on flavour.

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#785004 21-Mar-2013 14:38

wakaridnnz: I'm not too fussed about the whole charity/tax avoidance/frivolous litigation thing! but I don't remember Marmite being so sweet.

We bought a jar of Marmite yesterday for a taste comparison but I'm pretty sure we'll stick with Vegemite now purely on flavour.

Actually I have to agree with this. Maybe it's because it's been off the shelves for a year, but it kind of tastes different.

John2010

532 posts

Ultimate Geek

#785022 21-Mar-2013 14:58

We've got some of the old stuff I could do a taste comparison with when we get some new.

But I have to say it has a kinda sweet taste too, but that probably because it is now nearly 18 months past its Best By date

.

Mmmm, funny sweet with a strange tang might better describe it - no creepy crawlies yet though, well not ones big enough to see

jonb

1771 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#785026 21-Mar-2013 15:02

wakaridnnz: I'm not too fussed about the whole charity/tax avoidance/frivolous litigation thing! but I don't remember Marmite being so sweet.

We bought a jar of Marmite yesterday for a taste comparison but I'm pretty sure we'll stick with Vegemite now purely on flavour.

It was always too sweet

, you'd just forgotten..

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#785036 21-Mar-2013 15:19

John2010:

Well, I thought what Kyanar said was perfectly obvious, especially when taken with the later examples, but apparently not to all. The facts are:

In a court of law, so in a legal manner i.e. legally, a trademark can be challenged and determined to be invalid due to generic use. If the trademark holder does not defend it then they face the likelihood of their trademark being declared generic, so they are required to defend it if they want to keep it.

In case you are at a loss as to what some of the words mean (ref. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary) -

legally adverb in a legal manner; lawfully; from the point of view of law
court of law noun an assembly of judges or other persons acting as a tribunal legally appointed to hear and determine causes

All clear now ? If not you are beyond help.

No not all clear. Kyanar’s statement to me was implying that its illegal for Sanitarium to NOT act on any breach. No matter how small.

Hence I asked for him to back up that claim.

I’m fully aware of what you are saying but you have side stepped his "legally required to act ..." statement too. They are NOT legally required to do anything!

Sanitarium went after this guy with all guns blazing!

1) They wanted to stop him from importing the UK marmite.
2) They wanted the shipment destroyed.

They did not get what they wanted. In the end Sanatarium lost, the guy got to keep his imports and was still able to sell it, just under a different name.

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#785038 21-Mar-2013 15:27

jonb:
wakaridnnz: I'm not too fussed about the whole charity/tax avoidance/frivolous litigation thing! but I don't remember Marmite being so sweet.

We bought a jar of Marmite yesterday for a taste comparison but I'm pretty sure we'll stick with Vegemite now purely on flavour.

It was always too sweet , you'd just forgotten..

Spot on!

It actually has sugar in it, I think. Kiwis seem to have a very sweet tooth - there is sugar added to Weetbix, Watties Ketchup, Watties beans etc all of which are notably missing from the Weetabix/Heinz equivalent.

Why would you add sugar to Weetbix, a product most people eat with sugar and milk?!

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#785040 21-Mar-2013 15:29

John2010:
Klipspringer: Im refering to the statement that a trademark holder is literally legally required to act on any breach of their trademark no matter how small, or face their trademark being declared Generic and invalidated.
Legally?

Well, I thought what Kyanar said was perfectly obvious, especially when taken with the later examples, but apparently not to all. The facts are:

In a court of law, so in a legal manner i.e. legally, a trademark can be challenged and determined to be invalid due to generic use. If the trademark holder does not defend it then they face the likelihood of their trademark being declared generic, so they are required to defend it if they want to keep it.

In case you are at a loss as to what some of the words mean (ref. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary) -

legally adverb in a legal manner; lawfully; from the point of view of law
court of law noun an assembly of judges or other persons acting as a tribunal legally appointed to hear and determine causes

All clear now ? If not you are beyond help.

Of course, many of them are still brand names - Thermos and Hoover, for example, regardless of whether they are trade marks.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

John2010

532 posts

Ultimate Geek

#785042 21-Mar-2013 15:30

Klipspringer: No not all clear.

Is English not your first language? I ask that in all seriousness because you seem to make a very narrow interpretation of what is said and then pursue that interpretation as if in a re-enactment of the Boer Wars.

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#785046 21-Mar-2013 15:38

Klipspringer:
No not all clear. Kyanar’s statement is implying that its illegal for Sanitarium to NOT act on any breach. No matter how small.

Hence I asked for him to back up that claim.

I’m fully aware of what you are saying but you have side stepped his "legally required to act ..." statement too. They are NOT legally required to do anything!

Sanitarium went after this guy with all guns blazing!

1) They wanted to stop him from importing the UK marmite.
2) They wanted the shipment destroyed.

They did not get what they wanted. In the end Sanatarium lost, the guy got to keep his imports and was still able to sell it, just under a different name, the guy was allowed to keep his shipment, and sell it in NZ under a different name.

This is the absolute last I will say on this topic, because frankly it seems you're just being deliberately disingenuous. A legal requirement to act does not necessarily result from a law stating that something must occur, but also from a law stating that if something does not occur then the consequences will be undesirable.

They are legally required to act, or there will be legal consequences to not acting - the legal consequence being a weakening or loss of their trademark. I thought that was blindingly obvious, but if you're deliberately looking to not see that I can see how you'd miss it.

And actually, they did get what they want. The guy sold it using a different name, not "Marmite" - which is the end goal they were going for anyway. Sounds like a win, actually.

And, um, you might find this interesting: http://www.sanza.co.uk/Sanitarium_Marmite_Large.asp "Please note that due to trademark restrictions we use the term NZ-Mite and re-label the jars for UK sale".

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#785052 21-Mar-2013 15:42

John2010:
Klipspringer: No not all clear.

Is English not your first language? I ask that in all seriousness because you seem to make a very narrow interpretation of what is said and then pursue that interpretation as if in a re-enactment of the Boer Wars.

As english as they come.
Long day! Probably my fault for interpreting it incorrectly.

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#785056 21-Mar-2013 15:46

Kyanar:

And actually, they did get what they want. The guy sold it using a different name, not "Marmite" - which is the end goal they were going for anyway. Sounds like a win, actually.

Umm. Did you read the article I posted?

The guy imported it with the name, "Ma'amite". They still went after him.

He was not going to sell it under the Marmite name anyway.

I don't exactly call it a win. They still wanted the stuff destroyed even though it was not called marmite. They never got what they wanted.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/7827685/Sanitarium-wants-rival-Marmite-shipment-destroyed

Documents obtained by Fairfax show Sanitarium asked Savage to conceal the spread with labels ''to both the front and back of each jar'' hiding the word Ma'amite.The letter asked his company, Savage Limited, Savage and his wife to sign a personal guarantee to never import Marmite, Ma'amite, or the cereal Weetabix again.

It also banned Savage from speaking to the media and told him to issue the media with a statement prepared by Sanitarium if approached.

When Savage refused to sign, the company threatened to take legal action.

myopinion

938 posts

Ultimate Geek

#785067 21-Mar-2013 16:03

I remember quite clearly the first time I tasted Marmite at my Grandpops when I was about 4 years old. We used to only have Vegemite but I instantly fell for the new Marmite back then. After that I got Mum to buy only Marmite. One thing I noticed was that as Grandpop didn't go through the Marmite very quickly I'd be eating 1-2 year old jars of Marmite when I went to stay. The old Marmite tasted way better than the just opened stuff. Seems to mature and develop more taste over time :)

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#785169 21-Mar-2013 19:57

Klipspringer:
Kyanar:

And actually, they did get what they want. The guy sold it using a different name, not "Marmite" - which is the end goal they were going for anyway. Sounds like a win, actually.

Umm. Did you read the article I posted?

The guy imported it with the name, "Ma'amite". They still went after him.

He was not going to sell it under the Marmite name anyway.

I don't exactly call it a win. They still wanted the stuff destroyed even though it was not called marmite. They never got what they wanted.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/7827685/Sanitarium-wants-rival-Marmite-shipment-destroyed

Oh for the love of all that's holy. Go get yourself a jar of Ma'amite. It quite clearly says "Marmite" no less than three times on the label. Hence the reason he was forced by the court to relabel it.

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#786827 25-Mar-2013 18:16

Kyanar:
Klipspringer:
Kyanar:

And actually, they did get what they want. The guy sold it using a different name, not "Marmite" - which is the end goal they were going for anyway. Sounds like a win, actually.

Umm. Did you read the article I posted?

The guy imported it with the name, "Ma'amite". They still went after him.

He was not going to sell it under the Marmite name anyway.

I don't exactly call it a win. They still wanted the stuff destroyed even though it was not called marmite. They never got what they wanted.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/7827685/Sanitarium-wants-rival-Marmite-shipment-destroyed

Oh for the love of all that's holy. Go get yourself a jar of Ma'amite. It quite clearly says "Marmite" no less than three times on the label. Hence the reason he was forced by the court to relabel it.

To be fair he wasn't forced by anyone. He actually offered to do that voluntarily months before Sanitarium decided to play bully boys and insist on going to court.

"Savage said today that he had reached an agreement with Sanitarium out of court.

Under the agreement he can sell his product as long as the word "Ma'amite" is covered.

"We could've done this ages ago but they tried to impose all sorts of other restrictions on me," he said.

"They've been trying to bully me and they didn't think I'd go through with it to go to court, but I stuck to my guns and they've backed down. I would have fought them all the way to court."

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5