Free Marmite From Countdown?

Forums › Off topic › Free Marmite From Countdown?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

532 posts

Ultimate Geek

#784804 21-Mar-2013 08:49

Kyanar:
Klipspringer:

Its like the UK marmite. Its called Marmite in South Africa, not SAmite. They were forced to rebrand the imported product here in NZ because Sanitarium made a stink.

For the billionth time, Sanitarium didn't "make a stink". 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. Ironically, the manufacturers of the original Marmite (UK? SA? I can't remember which) would be the ones infuriated by this, as they license said trademark to Sanitarium and losing it to a generic declaration would be very bad for them.

+1 .

I often think of Simon & Garfunkle's "The Boxer" when reading these forums "...a man hears what he wants to hear And disregards the rest"

TrendMicro

Best TrendMicro deals for antivirus and malware protection(affiliate link).

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#784806 21-Mar-2013 09:05

John2010:
Kyanar:
Klipspringer:

Its like the UK marmite. Its called Marmite in South Africa, not SAmite. They were forced to rebrand the imported product here in NZ because Sanitarium made a stink.

For the billionth time, Sanitarium didn't "make a stink". 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. Ironically, the manufacturers of the original Marmite (UK? SA? I can't remember which) would be the ones infuriated by this, as they license said trademark to Sanitarium and losing it to a generic declaration would be very bad for them.

+1 .

I often think of Simon & Garfunkle's "The Boxer" when reading these forums "...a man hears what he wants to hear And disregards the rest"

Sounds like quiet a stink to me ...

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10855037

In August, importer and British ex-pat Rob Savage attempted to import a shipment of UK-made yeast under the Ma'amite label.

The $12,000 batch was seized by customs after Sanitarium claimed selling it here would be a breach of copyright.

Savage said the Ma'amite label, created to commemorate the Queen's Diamond Jubilee, was spelt differently to Sanitarium's product and there was no breach of copyright.

Sanitarium's stance was that although spelt differently, 'Ma'amite' phonetically sounded the same.

The two parties failed to reach agreement over the matter and Sanitarium filed legal papers to have the trade mark infringement case heard in court and the shipment destroyed.

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#784810 21-Mar-2013 09:13

Kyanar: 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.

Got anything to back up that claim?
If it were true then Marmite in the UK would be having a go at Sanitarium. But instead the "real" Marmite company allows NZ Marmite to be sold in the UK.

Geektastic

17690 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#784813 21-Mar-2013 09:29

Klipspringer:
old3eyes:
2. I seem to remember reading that Sanitarium is owned by the Seventh Day Adventist Church and don't pay any company tax..

I take it you don't eat Weet-Bix and Sanitarium peanut butter either?

I certainly don't. That is not peanut butter - it is a vile cocktail of rubbish.

Peanut butter has two ingredients: Peanuts and salt. That is all.

Pic's from Nelson is 10000000% better than the Sanitarium gloop.

After the heavy handed way that they treated anyone selling UK Marmite in NZ whilst there was none of their own pseudo-marmite available, I won't spend another dime on their products for the rest of my life.

Geektastic

17690 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#784815 21-Mar-2013 09:33

Klipspringer:
John2010:
Kyanar:
Klipspringer:

Its like the UK marmite. Its called Marmite in South Africa, not SAmite. They were forced to rebrand the imported product here in NZ because Sanitarium made a stink.

For the billionth time, Sanitarium didn't "make a stink". 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. Ironically, the manufacturers of the original Marmite (UK? SA? I can't remember which) would be the ones infuriated by this, as they license said trademark to Sanitarium and losing it to a generic declaration would be very bad for them.

+1 .

I often think of Simon & Garfunkle's "The Boxer" when reading these forums "...a man hears what he wants to hear And disregards the rest"

Sounds like quiet a stink to me ...

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10855037

In August, importer and British ex-pat Rob Savage attempted to import a shipment of UK-made yeast under the Ma'amite label.

The $12,000 batch was seized by customs after Sanitarium claimed selling it here would be a breach of copyright.

Savage said the Ma'amite label, created to commemorate the Queen's Diamond Jubilee, was spelt differently to Sanitarium's product and there was no breach of copyright.

Sanitarium's stance was that although spelt differently, 'Ma'amite' phonetically sounded the same.

The two parties failed to reach agreement over the matter and Sanitarium filed legal papers to have the trade mark infringement case heard in court and the shipment destroyed.

They lost - Rob got his product back.

The legislation they relied on was intended to stop things like knock off Chanel handbags being imported. UK Marmite is no knock-off - it is the real original product from which the gross Kiwi version is descended. IMV the legislation was never intended to cover that and I suspect that is why Sanitarium were keen to settle the matter quietly once they realised that they were skating on thin ice in court.

Geektastic

17690 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#784817 21-Mar-2013 09:43

Kyanar:
Klipspringer:

Its like the UK marmite. Its called Marmite in South Africa, not SAmite. They were forced to rebrand the imported product here in NZ because Sanitarium made a stink.

For the billionth time, Sanitarium didn't "make a stink". 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. Ironically, the manufacturers of the original Marmite (UK? SA? I can't remember which) would be the ones infuriated by this, as they license said trademark to Sanitarium and losing it to a generic declaration would be very bad for them.

Nonsense.

Unilever own the Marmite brand in the UK. Do you see them rushing about using their considerable wealth and corporate muscle to prosecute shop keepers selling NZ Marmite to ex pat Kiwis in London?

Of course not. They are a mature company not a parochial amateur effort - Sanitarium are so small as to be insignificant. The products are different in taste, branding, packaging, marketing, customer base and every other reasonable way. Their very expensive lawyers clearly do not think their clients are in the slightest danger of losing the Marmite trademark.

No Kiwi will accidentally buy UK Marmite thinking it is NZ Marmite or vice versa. Sanitarium just can't think of original products (Weetabix was made in Australia originally and it is the UK version that is exported to over 80 countries not the NZ version...!) and, apart from being a quasi-religious cult owned company, has behaved pretty badly in this matter.

John2010

532 posts

Ultimate Geek

#784828 21-Mar-2013 10:18

Geektastic:
They lost - Rob got his product back.

Thanks for demonstrating my "...a man hears what he wants to hear And disregards the rest" quote by your omitting everything about the settlement that might taint your claims

.

A settlement was reached in which the agreement was, in fact and insofar as it is public, that the product held by customs (understood to be less than 2,000 jars) was to be relabelled to remove the reference to "Marmite" from it and then be allowed to be sold, but any further imports were not to use the name "Ma'amite".

So it seems to me that despite your claim that they lost, Sanitarium actually protected their trademark.

BlueShift

1688 posts

Uber Geek

#784835 21-Mar-2013 10:24

Klipspringer:

Sounds like quiet a stink to me ...

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10855037

In August, importer and British ex-pat Rob Savage attempted to import a shipment of UK-made yeast under the Ma'amite label.

The $12,000 batch was seized by customs after Sanitarium claimed selling it here would be a breach of copyright.

Savage said the Ma'amite label, created to commemorate the Queen's Diamond Jubilee, was spelt differently to Sanitarium's product and there was no breach of copyright.

Sanitarium's stance was that although spelt differently, 'Ma'amite' phonetically sounded the same.

The two parties failed to reach agreement over the matter and Sanitarium filed legal papers to have the trade mark infringement case heard in court and the shipment destroyed.

Ahh, Ma'amite refers to the queen - Ma'am. Here was I thinking it was a tribute to Ma'a Nonu...

Kyanar

3877 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#784861 21-Mar-2013 11:00

Klipspringer:
Kyanar: 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.

Got anything to back up that claim?
If it were true then Marmite in the UK would be having a go at Sanitarium. But instead the "real" Marmite company allows NZ Marmite to be sold in the UK.

I can give you several examples.

Kerosene. Heroin. Thermos. Escalator. Aspirin. Yo-yo. Zipper. Philips Screw Driver. Pogo Stick.

All of those were trademarks, until their owners failed to defend them and lost them to genericization. You will probably find that those shops have an agreement with Unilever regarding how they sell the product (either that or Unilever actually does risk losing their trademark for failing to defend it).

By contrast though, Sanitarium both owns the trademark and has a contract with the original Marmite Food Company in 1908 to exclusively distribute in NZ and Australia.

John2010

532 posts

Ultimate Geek

#784891 21-Mar-2013 11:43

Klipspringer:
Kyanar: 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.

Got anything to back up that claim?...

And in parallel to Kyanar's list of example generics, a couple of current/recent local cases of generic trademark claim cases. DB have recently successfully defended a claim that "Radler" (the beer) is now generic and there is a current claim (don't think it is settled) defended by Tasman Insulation (Fletcher's subsidiary) that their trademark "Batts" (the insulation) is now generic. In both these cases the claim is that the names have been allowed to come into common usage.

TinyTim

1005 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#784892 21-Mar-2013 11:45

keewee01:

I take issue with it because the company I work for is in the same situation. We are a plastics manufacturer and one of the items we make are large plastic tank (in the 10,000's L range). One of the churches (I can't remember which) owns a competitor who also makes tanks. The competitor can sell their tanks significantly cheaper than we can due to the fact they don't pay tax. Is that fair in the market place?

Why should such companies, making millions in profits, not have to pay tax - especially when not having to pay tax gives them a competitive advantage in the market?

WOW - this has gotten off topic!

The only reason that not paying tax could allow some manufacturer to sell products cheaper is because there is some post-tax profit that the shareholders or directors require them to earn (e.g. dividends), and paying no tax allows them to achieve that with less revenue. In the case of a charity, the net income is used in its charitable activities, so the advantage that your church competitor has by being tax exempt is it gets more to spend on missionaries and foodbanks etc than your company's shareholders get to put in their pockets. If the charity decides to discount their prices, then they are accepting less return on their investment.

Legally, charities CANNOT MAKE (PRIVATE) PROFITS. They cannot be used to make anyone wealthy. That is why they pay no tax. Any net income gets spent on their charitable activities. (Which any for-profit organisation can do, as a tax deductable expense. But their shareholders would probably have issues with that. ) And normally, a charity would not budget to make any retained profit (unless they were planning for some capital expense in the future).

And there could be other explanations for being able to undercut you - e.g. they could have a lower cost base because church people donate their time, and they choose to use that to lower their revenue rather than increase their return.

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#784907 21-Mar-2013 12:12

John2010:
Klipspringer:
Kyanar: 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.

Got anything to back up that claim?...

And in parallel to Kyanar's list of example generics, a couple of current/recent local cases of generic trademark claim cases. DB have recently successfully defended a claim that "Radler" (the beer) is now generic and there is a current claim (don't think it is settled) defended by Tasman Insulation (Fletcher's subsidiary) that their trademark "Batts" (the insulation) is now generic. In both these cases the claim is that the names have been allowed to come into common usage.

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?

old3eyes

8995 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#784918 21-Mar-2013 12:37

Klipspringer:
John2010:
Kyanar:
Klipspringer:

Its like the UK marmite. Its called Marmite in South Africa, not SAmite. They were forced to rebrand the imported product here in NZ because Sanitarium made a stink.

For the billionth time, Sanitarium didn't "make a stink". 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. Ironically, the manufacturers of the original Marmite (UK? SA? I can't remember which) would be the ones infuriated by this, as they license said trademark to Sanitarium and losing it to a generic declaration would be very bad for them.

+1 .

I often think of Simon & Garfunkle's "The Boxer" when reading these forums "...a man hears what he wants to hear And disregards the rest"

Sounds like quiet a stink to me ...

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10855037

In August, importer and British ex-pat Rob Savage attempted to import a shipment of UK-made yeast under the Ma'amite label.

The $12,000 batch was seized by customs after Sanitarium claimed selling it here would be a breach of copyright.

Savage said the Ma'amite label, created to commemorate the Queen's Diamond Jubilee, was spelt differently to Sanitarium's product and there was no breach of copyright.

Sanitarium's stance was that although spelt differently, 'Ma'amite' phonetically sounded the same.

The two parties failed to reach agreement over the matter and Sanitarium filed legal papers to have the trade mark infringement case heard in court and the shipment destroyed.

Considering at the time Sanitarium couldn't supply any product I think they had a bit of a nerve taking this guy to court. Another reason I don't buy their products..

Regards,

Old3eyes

Kyanar

3877 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#784993 21-Mar-2013 14:24

Klipspringer:
John2010:
Klipspringer:
Kyanar: 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.

Got anything to back up that claim?...

And in parallel to Kyanar's list of example generics, a couple of current/recent local cases of generic trademark claim cases. DB have recently successfully defended a claim that "Radler" (the beer) is now generic and there is a current claim (don't think it is settled) defended by Tasman Insulation (Fletcher's subsidiary) that their trademark "Batts" (the insulation) is now generic. In both these cases the claim is that the names have been allowed to come into common usage.

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?

Yes legally. If you don't act upon a trademark breach by another supplier, you risk your trademark being genericized. Which is exactly what all those posts said and examples provided of showed, and which you chose to conveniently ignore.

I'm not continuing this because it's clear you aren't interested in anything that doesn't align with your view.

John2010

532 posts

Ultimate Geek

#784994 21-Mar-2013 14:25

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.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5