What kind of press might an Idaho boycott of potatoes get?

What would the French have to say about the trademarking of their most notorious casual cuisine?

This is ridiculous. Why does the potato commission even care? If anything they should like and promote the name/business!

Ridiculous is right! Wouldn't IPC be all about the promotion of ID potatoes? IF IFC decides to fight it, I'd be happy to put in some money to help. They should start a fund to fight this ridiculousness and put IPC in their place.

This is a copy of an email I just sent to the IPC--I doubt I will receive any response!!

"I just heard a report on a local news channel about the Idaho Potato Commission and their demands that a new local business change their name due to patent/copyright infringement. which I think is a stretch. It is disheartening to hear that an organization who is being SUPPORTED and PROMOTED by this new company would take such ridiculous actions. I will continue to patronize the IDAHO FRY COMPANY but will no longer worry about purchasing or promoting Idaho potatoes..including sending numerous boxes to friends and family out-of-state. I am a daughter of an Idaho farmer and a niece of an Idaho potato producer and I am ashamed that your organization would take these steps. I believe blight and hollow-heart are two diseases that potatoes can suffer from....apparently the Idaho Potato Commission and it's member's ethics suffer from those diseases too!! You should all be ashamed for not supporting a LOCAL business who is promoting YOUR PRODUCT!!! If you want people to support and promote your products you should do the same!!!
SHAME ON YOU!!!"

How can I boycott the IPC and simultaneously support the IFC.? I think a full on protest is in order. I have not even eaten at IFC yet, but screw these Republican bureaucrats. I am goining to eat IFC fries until I explode! Eat potatoes democratically. Potatoes are the food of the oppressed!

http://contact.idahopotato.com/
I urge everyone reading this to channel their dismay to the potato mafia directly

Here is the e-mail I just sent to the IPC:

Just read the story about the Commission's heavy handed tactics with regard to the Idaho Fry Company -- a small business that in my opinion does nothing but enhance the reputation of Idaho potatoes. There is a line between defending the reputation of the product or service that your brand represents, and using brand ownership to create a marketing monopoly. IPC has crossed that line. How ironic that your most current press release touts the awarding of $150,000 to retailers celebrating Potato Lovers' Month. You've certainly left a bad taste in my mouth. On the other hand, you've just handed me my latest topic for my Idaho Business Review blog, so I guess I owe you one there.

Shame on IPC!

Michael Boss

P.S. -- Why is the Commission, which supports local produce, using an out-of-state marketing agency rather than one located in Idaho? Bad form, guys.

Let me get this straight -- a company starts a business that promotes the ID Potato and IPC uses it's financial baking to force them to change their name because apparently IPC thinks they own all that is "potato". Bad PR move. Now all the commission has done is anger local citizens into refusing to purchase ID potatoes. The exception of course being potatoes sold at Idaho Fry Company.
Support local businesses IPC. Remember where your product comes from.

Rebecca Burdick

Idaho Fry Company's primary product is obviously burgers, not fries. The IPC should learn to pick their battles more carefully.

The IPC missed the boat on this big time. Why not "license" IFC to continue on promoting a famous Idaho product. IFC's dining concept might be something to franchised and further promote the IDAHO potato. I see it in airports and malls all over the country.

Those Idaho Potato heads should be aplauding Blake Lingle and his partner in business for using home grown Idaho potatoes! What happened to the Idaho State Pride! IPC should give it up!

"Little legal standing and lots of money" ... hmmm ... perhaps we should add "lots of time on their hands" and "a need to justify salaries"?

All hail pom frites! Seriously, the IPC is just looking for a protest outside their building. First the governor won't buy idaho, and now, the IPC claims it has a lock on a french invention. Losers

GM goes bankrupt, financial markets continue to fall apart, and now this. Even the lowly potato is surrounded by controversy. What has the world come to? Are we witnessing the first signs of armegeddon?

Trademark law is intended to protect consumers, not provide a bully club for trademark holders. The potato commission by claiming legal rights to generic words is nothing other than an overreaching bully in this case.

The Idaho Potato Commission cannot possibly hold a valid trademark in the terms Idaho associated with potatoes or any of their delicious derivatives. TrademarK Law provides that generic terms, like "Idaho" "potato" "fry" "boise" etc do not qualify for legal protection at all because nothing about the term inherently identifies the quality or source of goods for consumers. While Idaho is a source of potatos it is also the source of so many other things that no consumer would inherently and invariably associate Idaho with potatos only.

Protection for trademarks varies depending upon the type of term alleged to be a mark. Categories of terms that could qualify for legal protection are: fanciful words "Xerox," descriptive words, "park N Fly", or suggestive words "Greyhound" Bus line. Because these terms do inherently identify the source of a product (the Xerox corp) or a quality ("park N Fly" identifies a place to park prior to flying away), or require consumers to make imaginative associations between the mark and the product ("greyhound" must be a fast service) they qualify for varying degree of protections depending on the possible confusion to consumers, not harm to the trademark holder. For any mark, as the meaning of the word or symbol becomes more broadly applicable to other products and services the legal protections for that mark declines.

Trademark allows allow a person who successfully defends themselves from a baseless attack to collect attorney's fees from the other side in exceptional circumstances. Defending themselves from the baseless actions of the potato commission, who is asserting a frivolous claim to trademark through intimidation only, would likely qualify as an exceptional circumstance and allow Idaho Fry Co to collect their fees from the potato commission.

Just a suggestion to all you attorneys out there who deal with trademarks and patents and the like . . . why don't you offer gratis legal services to Idaho Fry Company so they can fight this??
Taking on this case free of charge will pay off in the end, as not only will your firm get excellent press but the status of attorneys will get a bit of a polish as well (no longer a money grubbing shyster, now a fighter for justice and the "little guy").

maybe you could have investigated this conversation piece a little bit more before calling it journalism because it is pretty irritating that no one called the potato commission for this "story"

So does the Idaho Potato Commission charge for the Idaho Candy Company to sell the Idaho Spud Bar??? The other question is does the State of Idaho have to pay the Commission to use Idaho on all of the state documents that have the word Idaho on them???

To take it a step further Idaho license plates that say "Idaho" at the top and "Famous Patoes" at the bottom. I would think that The IPC would ask the state to either change its name to North Utah, or have the state pay royalties to IPC for having Idaho and Patato on the same legal document. :`)