CHAPTERS
Momofuku’s “Chili Crunch” trademark sparks backlash
Kara sets up the controversy: David Chang’s Momofuku has trademarked the term “Chili Crunch” and sent cease-and-desist letters to other makers using the phrase. Critics argue the term describes a widely used, culturally rooted condiment and shouldn’t be privately owned.
How can a common phrase be claimed as a brand?
Kara challenges the logic from a branding and consumer perspective, noting how ubiquitous “Chili Crunch” appears in Asian markets and globally. She frames the move as reputationally damaging and confusing given the term’s common usage.
Why IP protection matters—and where it goes wrong
Scott zooms out: strong IP protections are crucial for innovation and the economy. But he argues the system can be pushed too far when companies attempt to fence off language or ideas that aren’t truly distinctive.
The ‘That’s hot’ analogy: courts as the boundary-setters
Scott compares the situation to attempts to trademark overly common phrases (e.g., Paris Hilton’s “that’s hot”). He emphasizes the role of judges and legal standards in deciding when a term is too generic to be owned.
Cease-and-desist letters as intimidation and competition suppression
Scott argues IP enforcement has become ‘weaponized,’ especially by well-resourced companies. The mere threat of litigation can pressure smaller businesses to change names even if the claim is weak.
IP filings as PR: the Amazon patent example
Scott describes how some companies use patents/trademarks not just for protection but for attention. He claims certain headline-grabbing filings are designed to generate media coverage rather than reflect near-term practical inventions.
Why ‘Chili Crunch’ likely fails: genericness and enforceability
Scott predicts the trademark claim will ultimately be rejected or limited because the term functions generically. In his view, a court would conclude that Momofuku can’t control a name widely used to describe a product category.
What happens next: dismissal and potential ‘legal harassment’ consequences
Kara presses on the likely outcome, and Scott forecasts the effort will be dismissed and characterized as legal harassment. He suggests there could even be consequences like paying opponents’ legal fees if the action is deemed baseless.
How did the trademark get granted, and can it still be undone?
Kara raises a practical point: if Momofuku has the trademark, the trademark office played a role in allowing it. Scott notes that ownership isn’t the same as validity—registrations can still be challenged if a term isn’t truly trademarkable.
Balancing incentives and competition in IP law
Scott closes by acknowledging the real tension: IP protections should reward investment in differentiated products, but must not be expanded so far that they block legitimate competition. The goal is a marketplace where protection doesn’t become overreach.
