It was only a few weeks ago that we wrote about a trademark dispute in the UK between a deli shop owner and a book publisher over the use of the word “sabzi.” Kate Attlee is the founder of Sabzi, the name of her deli, while Bloomsbury published a cookbook by Yasmin Khan called Sabzi: Vibrant Vegetarian Recipes. Attlee threatened legal action over the title of the book, arguing that her trademark for “Sabzi” had been violated. The problem, as we noted at the time, is that “sabzi” isn’t some made up word; it’s a Persian word used in cooking for herbs or vegetables (shout out to a commenter in the previous post who explained an even more nuanced definition of the term in its original use/form) and is in wide use by those who speak the language.

I had argued this was akin to attempts to trademark words like “pho” or “pretzel crisps”, but some in our comments disagreed. I’m still comfortable with my original analysis, that categories of entire common food types should probably not be trademarkable by themselves and, even if they are, shouldn’t be weaponized in the manner that Attlee was attempting.

And now it appears that Attlee agrees, as she has dropped the matter entirely and both sides are saying the dispute is over.

A Cornish deli owner has withdrawn her complaint over the use of her company’s name on a cookery book. A Bloomsbury spokesperson said: “We are pleased that Kate Attlee has done the right thing and withdrawn her complaint.

“It has been our position from the outset that the use of the descriptive term Sabzi as the title of Ms Khan’s cookbook does not constitute trademark use and does not infringe any IP (intellectual property) rights.

“We wish Kate Attlee continued success with her deli business”.

That doesn’t read as any kind of settlement having been reached. It doesn’t read as though Bloomsbury has conceded anything at all in the dispute. That’s the kind of statement a company puts out if it was the beneficiary of essentially unconditional surrender.

Look, I’m glad Attlee got to this place and dropped the dispute. But it should be a lesson to everyone else that engaging in this kind of overprotectionist activity often times is going to produce a whole lot of nothing for the aggressor and, at worst, can generate some negative PR as well.

So maybe just don’t threaten others over fairly generic and descriptive terms, okay?

From Techdirt via this RSS feed