"It’s simply unfathomable to me that this trademark can stand as legally binding. The fact that it’s held by a European company is just insulting on top of that."
Unnecessary acrimonious statement. Is it because it is a non-US company, or specifically a European company?
I believe French people could feel similarly insulted by California "champagne"⁰.
The insult is not that the company is specifically European but that it is non-US. I think the analogy you describe would be more apt if a Californian company were attempting to prevent French people from using the term champagne to describe real champagne from Champagne.
I don't think these two things can really be equated when you give them an honest look.
In one instance you are preventing others from profiting off their own culture. In the other you are piggybacking off of and profiting from another cultures success.
Both may be wrong but they are separate issues. Conflating them seems like a form of whataboutism.
The claim that champagne refers to bubbling wines in general and cannot be owned, is (not perfectly, but quite) the opposite of the idea that a general and public concept (route 66) is ownable by an entity.
There are about 30 different US trademarks for "Route 66", in different categories - beer, tobacco, etc. Tempting Brands owns many categories. The question is whether they have products in them.
You can register a US trademark with an "intent to use" it, but normally you have to submit a statement of use with an image of the trademark being used on some product within six months. Here, though, Tempting Brands filed in another country first, which gives them a pass on that initial requirement.
Between 5 and 6 years after initial registration, though, the trademark owner, even if non-US, must submit a statement with an image of the trademark being used on some product to the USPTO. Some of their trademarks, such as #79975044, just passed that point. There's a six month grace period after year 6 during which renewal is still possible with a double fee ($100 per class registered), and that's now timing out.
As someone quite opposed to copyright and patents, I'd say there is an argument for trademark; the use of trademarks is weakly rivalrous - if I start using it, it can potentially occlude your ability to use it. For example, I start an Acme widget company, and you also make widgets branded Acme, of a poorer quality than my widgets. The strength of the rivalrousness depends on factors, such as locality of operation, domain of operation, and it is on that, rational, basis that trademarks are managed - you have to show you're using the trademark, you have to show that you are defending it, and you only get a regional trademark where you are actively operating and in the domain that you're operating. Five guys hamburgers can't (easily) stop Five guys auto mechanics.
On the other hand, there are people badass enough to not bother trademarking (David Tran doesn't trademark Sriracha)
Unnecessary acrimonious statement. Is it because it is a non-US company, or specifically a European company?
I believe French people could feel similarly insulted by California "champagne"⁰.
0: http://www.chapmanlawreview.com/archives/1256
* * *
EDIT:
Thanks for the replies. I agree California champagne is a poorly chosen example.
I understand the outrage about a Dutch company claiming ownership of the image of Route 66, but it just feels like "insulting" is too strong a word.