▲ 62 points
back
41 comments
Tran has always had the zen and art of business administration on lock.
"Hot sauce must be hot. If you don't like it hot, use less," he said. "We don't make mayonnaise here."
He might have capitalized on the market by releasing a blander sauce, but he's doing just fine without it, so why compromise?
This is off-topic, but I caught hung up in the first sentence when the author mentions he has a place in his fridge for hollandaise sauce. Hollandaise sauce is good for 24-48 hours, even refrigerated. Dude must eat eggs benedict for every meal.
I can't help but think you also touched upon a point I've been thinking about recently: the enthusiast.
You can dilute a product to appeal to everyone all the time, but the enthusiasts are the ones who help champion the product to friends and followers. The power of the word of mouth should never be under-estimated.
I was listening to a podcast by Zach Lowe where he interviewed one of the writers of Parks and Rec. Zach mentioned that sometimes he'll notice extremely esoteric jokes which would fly over the majority of the audience. And the writer responded those are what they call the 1% jokes. Those jokes absolutely kill it with people who recognize it, and probably also help inspire the writing staff who are likely inspired by the fact that they can produce work that they themselves find really funny.
Sriracha used to be a lot more hot. The problem is that if it's too hot then you use less then you eat less then you buy less.
Pretty sure he had to do a compromise to increase sales.
I thought that sriracha was very hot when I first tried it. I quickly became addicted to the stuff and pretty rapidly developed a strong tolerance for the heat. I suspect the same happened to you, I don't actually think he changed the formula.
Eh, I eat off foods in my fridge all the time. Usually they still resemble their former glory days.
Sriracha is a type of sauce named after the coastal city of Si Racha in eastern Thailand [1] originating in the 1930s.
Did the author of this article not bother doing a Wikipedia search on the subject of their article?
Right--there's actually a principle in U.S. trademark law[1] that can prevent registration of a trademark if it has a generic meaning in a foreign language.
As one court[2] explained: "Because of the diversity of the population of the United States, coupled with temporary visitors, all of whom are part of the United States marketplace, commerce in the United States utilizes innumerable foreign languages. No merchant may obtain the exclusive right over a trademark designation if that exclusivity would prevent competitors from designating a product as what it is in the foreign language their customers know best."
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_foreign_equivalents
How does Tabasco Sauce get away with it, given that it's made from tabasco peppers (named after the Mexican state of Tabasco)?
according to their website[1], the founder of the company also was the creator of the name tabasco
Not sure if their website is the most reliable source of such information, but thats what it claims.
Actually, i looked further into it, and found an article[2] with this passage (the whole article is pretty interesting):
>And on July 29, 1918, the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Gaidry v. McIlhenny Co., 253 F. 613, recognized McIlhenny as the exclusive holder of the right to sell pepper sauce with the mark “Tabasco.” In short, the court found that despite the geographic descriptiveness of the word Tabasco, it had acquired a secondary meaning to the public as an source identifier, namely identifying McIllhenny’s red pepper sauce.
[1]http://www.tabasco.com/mcilhenny-company/about/ [2]http://www.vegastrademarkattorney.com/2007/10/story-of-tabas...
But is Sriracha actually a type of sauce in Thailand, or is it just the name of a city? If it's the latter I don't think this would apply.
It is a type of sauce in Thailand with somewhat complex origin.
The sauce was created and is popular locally in Sriracha for long (originally known as Nam Prik Sriracha) but the sauce was popularize across the country by Sriraja Panich, who is the first to produce the sauce commercially as Sriraja Sauce.
Sriraja Panich couldn't trademark the brand due to law in Thailand disallowing region name to be used as a trademark. This fact spawn several brand using the name Sriracha sauce and caused the name Sriracha sauce to become a type of a sauce here in Thailand. Sriracha city even put the "town of delicious sauce" as their official motto.
Many Thais still consider Sriraja Panich as the only genuine Sriracha sauce maker (even though they're now own by Thai Theparos), and do not have a good impression of the US-made Sriracha sauce brand.
Both, but only because the US-made Sriracha sauce is imported by the ton.
No... read the Wikipedia article linked to above, Siracha is believed to have been created in Si Racha in the 1930s.
Theres a documentary about Sriracha which looks into the origins: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXOAx58LBDo
Basically its not clear where the origin is.
You guys both just needed to read the article: "USPTO has already issued several decisions stating that the single word "sriracha" on its own is now too generic for any of these pretenders to trademark for themselves."
Matter of opinion. Like Tabasco.
No, the writer wants hits to the story. That's how he gets paid.
"And he can't be bothered to give any shits about trademarking it today because he's too busy raking in roughly all the money."
What a car-crash of a sentence.
Strongly disagree. Inelegant, but effective.
It would be a lot more effective if it were elegant. The colloqualisms shoehorned into that sentence do it no favors.
Welcome to the rest of the world where people talk that way everywhere, everyday.
It's not about the use of those phrases; it's about the way he integrates them into the sentence. It's clumsy.
When I use the word "elegant" here, I don't mean it in the sense of formality of language. I mean it in the sense of conveying a point as clearly and economically as possible. The biggest problem with his sentence is that it's overloaded with baggage. It reads as if the author liked the sound of a couple of fun phrases, then crammed them into the sentence.
"What a car-crash of a sentence."
*car crash
or "car-crash sentence"
Huy Fong Foods is the brand, sriracha is the product.
It's because he likes the fact that he created a new condiment and is satisfied with his current wealth and business size.
Sriracha is the product brand (e.g. Mountain Dew). Huy Fong Foods is the manufacturer brand (e.g. Pepsico). But like kleenex and saran wrap, it has become a generic term. Sriracha is a proper noun, but is slowly becoming a common noun.
It's gotten to the point where there are numerous competitors, some of whom produce bottles that look exactly the same except for two things: a yellow cap instead of green and a slightly different label/print of the logo and other information.
I think packaging falls under the rubric of "trade dress" -- different than trademarks, which generally involves words and symbols.
So if a competitor is selling red hot sauce in a bottle shaped just like a Huy Fong Sriracha bottle, along with similar writing, Huy Fong might have a case for challenging that, regardless of whether the competing product says "Sriracha" on it or displays the symbol of a rooster.
I was at the Fairway up on 132nd and riverside Dr last weekwmd, and they.had the competitor sauce you speak of. The big difference I noticed was they did not have any sodium benzoate preservative like the original siracha. If only they would give up in the preservative, I'd eat it again. Some real good all natural alternatives out there though.
I understand the sentiment of the article, and the business strategy could be the most lucrative; however, the article itself suggests none of the players, author included, actually understand trademark law.
A few of the legal issues I spot include: 1.) Though not registered with USPTO the original Sriracha manufacturers may have certain common law trademark rights as the first to enter the stream of commerce; 2.) that in theory nothing would have prohibited the trademarking of Sriracha while simultaneously providing a free limited license allowing competitors to use the mark; and 3.) the article seems to suggest it would have been possible for someone to come along after the original Sriracha and trademark the name, then prohibit the use of Sriracha by the original company.
Take a look at the Tabasco sauce in question:
http://countrystore.tabasco.com/TABASCOsupreg_sup-Sriracha-S...
That is some pretty similar branding.
Trader Joe's uses a clear bottle with a green cap and white printing. Dragon instead of a rooster, but it's way more similar than Tabasco's version.
https://eatingatjoes.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/trader-joes...
It's also terrible. At least when I tried it last year. Too sweet.
I don't understand why that exists. Store brands are for making things cheaper at comparable quality. Even if we want to accept that TJ's sriracha is of the same quality, proper Sriracha is absurdly cheap. You can buy a 6 month supply for a couple bucks, even if you use it for everything
What they should really trademark (if they haven't) is the bottle.
The rooster logo on the bottle IS trademarked.
Several people I know call it Cock Sauce because of the rooster as a double entendre.
Sorry but Sriracha for breakfast?
Put it on the eggs; scrambled, fried, whatever.
Fried spam, scrambled eggs on a toasted and buttered english muffin with a bit of Sriracha on the top. Probably not super healthy, but I love the stuff.
Absolutely; it goes well with almost anything :)
I use it on eggs more than anything else.