November 29, 2011

Bo Muller-Moore sells $25 hand-stenciled "Eat More Kale" T-shirts that he cranks out one at a time in his Vermont home, and this has ruffled the feathers of Chick-fil-A.

The fast-food chain, which rang up $3.5 billion in sales in 2010, is trying to put Muller-Moore out of business—for the second time in five years. Chick-fil-A, which is second only to king-of-the-fast-food-coop KFC, considers him a threat to the brand.

Chick-fil-A says Muller-Moore's T-shirt business, founded in 2000, infringes on its trademarked slogan "Eat Mor Chikin." It's a [deliberately-misspelled] advertising campaign the Atlanta-based chain launched in 1995 and, according to the company website, changed the burger-eating landscape forever. The message "reaches millions—on television, radio, the Internet, and the occasional water tower," explains the website. (The closest Chick-fil-A to Vermont is in Nashua, N.H., more than 120 miles away.)

Chick-fil-A first came after Muller-Moore in 2006, with a letter demanding that the artist—who also posts screenprinting instructional videos at eatmorekale.com—cease and desist from printing T-shirts and send Chick-fil-A any inventory.

"Man, it knocked the wind out of me," Muller-Moore, 39, told the Burlington Free Press. "I make my living as a foster parent. At the time, I had one small child. I now have two of my own. My business has grown every year. I'm certainly not getting rich. I can't live on it. It's the foster parenting gig that pays the bills, but that said, the business is growing every year. I'm in it for the long haul."

Muller-Moore applied to the Vermont Arts Council for free legal help, and a lawyer wrote some letters on his behalf. It seemed Chick-fil-A backed down. But then in August Muller-Moore applied for a U.S. trademark for "Eat More Kale" to use the phrase on a range of clothing and stickers.

Chick-fil-A cried fowl. In October of 2011 the company's lawyers sent a letter to Muller-Moore, noting that the company owns numerous U.S. and international trademarks and copyrights for both "Eat Mor Chikin" and for cows holding sandwich-boards reading "Eat Mor Chikin."

"Your client's Eat More Kale Mark plays off of and imitates Chick-fil-A's valuable 'Eat Mor Chikin' Intellectual Property by using a prefix confusingly similar to Chick-fil-A's federally-registered 'Eat Mor Chikin' trademarks," Chick-Fil-A's lawyer wrote to Muller-Moore's, according to the Free Press. "Your client's misappropriation of Chick-fil-A's 'Eat Mor Chikin' intellectual property, to play off of and benefit from the extraordinary fame and goodwill of Chick-fil-A's trademarks, copyrights and popular promotional campaign, is likely to cause confusion of the public and dilutes the distinctiveness of Chick-fil-A's intellectual property and diminishes its value. Such actions constitute trademark infringement, dilution and unfair competition in violation of federal and state law."

The six-page letter notes that Chick-fil-A has successfully defended against 30 other "Eat More" phrases, including "Eat More Goat" and "Eat More Beer," and says the chicken chain has won lawsuits against Burger King Corp. and others. (In 2000, Chick-fil-A objected to a Burger King ad where animated poultry from the film Chicken Run held up signs reading "Save the Chickens: Eat a Whopper.")

The letter asks that Muller-Moore abandon his trademark application, "cease and forever desist" all plans to use the phrase "Eat More Kale" for his business—and transfer the eatmorekale.com domain name to Chick-fil-A. (It says the chicken chain would not object to Muller-Moore using "Eat Kale" or eatkale.com.")

Muller-Moore's lawyer has fired off a five-page response, which observes that no one is likely to confuse the two slogans.

"My client's phrase shares only six out of twelve of the same letters as your client's phrase and none of the imagery or conceits," Richardson writes. "My client has no cow designs which appear in conjunction with the phrase 'Eat More Kale.'"

Whether one is likely to be confused with the other may be less at issue than whether Chick-fil-A can be seen to be lax in its defense of its own trademarks.

"If a trademark owner fails to protect their trademark, they run the risk of losing it," wrote Steve O'Donnell, a Lancaster, Pa., trademark attorney, of a 2010 case where Chick-fil-A complained about an Orlando area fruit and vegetable market using the slogan "Eat More Produce."

Does Chick-fil-A have a case?

Image credit: wineaccomplice.blogspot.com

Related Topics

• Managing
• The World
• Innovation

Related keywords

Courtney Rubin, Article, small-business news, legal issues, startups, Chik-fil-A, Eat More Kale, Bo Muller-Moore

Join the conversation ( 54 )

• Judi Wunderlich 3 months ago

  

  My comment is going to be a bit different, because something in this story other than the David and Goliath issue jumped out and made me say "whoa."Yes, I *** the big guy going after the little guy too, but something this little guy (Bo Muller-Moore) says in the story make me question his values/ethics. He says, "I make my living as a foster parent. At the time, I had one small child. I now have two of my own. My business has grown every year. I'm certainly not getting rich. I can't live on it. It's the foster parenting gig that pays the bills..."In every state that I know of, foster parenting is NOT a paid job; instead foster parents get a small reimbursement for what it costs them to feed/shelter and care for a child. In fact, you have to prove you have a job and financial resources to become a foster parent in the first place. But this guy clearly states that he's making a living out of foster parenting, and I'll bet the Vermont Department of Children and Families would pull his license if they knew he was taking in kids just to make a living off of them (via what the state pays him for child care).Shame on him, and I hope someone reports him.

  • Lorin Reed 3 months ago

    

    you guys are missing the point. this guy never said that he "uses foster children to make a living". you're making him out to seem like a villian, based on reading between the lines where it is not needed. his saying "the foster parenting gig that pays the bills" is said in a manner of speech that conveys how little money he makes in general, and how so much less even, of that money, comes from his shirts. none of this means he is abusing children...this is, AGAIN, a manner of speech. you people do not know this man. he could be the best parent on the planet. back to the original part of this story though, which is the shirt-- i think that its pretty nonsensical for chik fil a to fight this guy about his shirt. he doesnt misspell the word "more" like they do, and he refers to a healthy food that shouldnt raise eyebrows at all compared to the harvesting of chickens for consumption. and telling people to "eat" something shouldnt ever infringe on someone else's slogan-- its like chik fil a declaring their own martial law, and its really kinda scary, and makes them seem like a slobbering, retarded giant. oh, and i had never heard of their slogan "ear mor chikin" until this article, and i hope that the youth of this country, more likely to be influenced by these slogans than any other demographic, have not heard it either. maybe misspelling words is cute when you're on the internet, but really? this this supposed to be "cute"? "eat mor chikin"? gross.

    • Kristina Hudson 3 months ago

      

      Actually he DOES say SPECIFICALLY that he makes his living off of his foster kids: "I make my living as a foster parent. At the time, I had one small child. I now have two of my own. My business has grown every year. I'm certainly not getting rich. I can't live on it. It's the foster parenting gig that pays the bills, but that said, the business is growing every year. I'm in it for the long haul."This is taken- copy & pasted- from the article. It's his words. I agree with Judi- I hope someone reports him to the state. He may be the best parent in the world- it doesn't change the fact that he is abusing the state foster care system (not the children- the system) so that unfortunate children pay his bills.

• Joe Pettis 3 months ago

  

  Anyone that has the gall to sell a product that has MSG (mono-sodium glutenmate) in it and call it a health product ought not be allowed to have a copyright. The oil soak sponge full of additves they call, chikin is killin' people's. Eat More Kale. Viva Le 1st Amendment.

• Jake Lee 3 months ago

  

  Bo - make a short clip, post it on facebook or youtube. We can boycott Chick-fil-A, i'm sure BurgerKing McDonalds and a few other would love to fund you ..somehow.

• ThePoshPagoda 3 months ago

  

  Did anyone catch that he said, "it's the foster parenting gig that pays the bills?" ***

• Ted Miller 3 months ago

  

  This is ridiculous. It's really just a case of abuse of power on the part of CFA. The fact that they have been in court over similar issues, regardless of success or failure, only serves to show how sickeningly absurd this abuse is. A quick search turned up three more "Eat More" slogans in addition to EatMoreKale: Eat More Tees, a T-shirt site; Hershey's Eat-More cand bar; and Eat More Produce, a market in Florida. And if I found that so easily with just the words "eat more", there have to be many, many more than this.Only someone with an army of lawyers could win cases like these because the phrase "eat more" alone is not patented by them, only the phrase "eat more chikin". Muller-Moore better watch out because corporations typically win these by having more money. All they need to do is keep their case in litigation long enough for their unfortunate victims to run out of money, at which point they win.

• Richard Pole 3 months ago

  

  Chick ought to be ashamed. Corporate patents can't tie up the alphabet or the English language

• Dennis Bailey 3 months ago

  

  I think people were using the term "eat more" long before those self righteous hypocrites got into the chicken business. From now on I'm the only business that can use the phrase "Can I help you?" when a customer walks in. No more of their overpriced sandwiches for me. Oops I better be careful printing sandwich, someone may own that. God help us.

• Brett Delong 3 months ago

  

  Chik-fil-A has no choice. If you allow the precedent of allowing one person to use it then anyone who wishes to use it has the precedent that Chick-fil-A allowed it unchallenged previously. C'mon...you're a dope-smoking Vermont vegetarian hippie. Come up with your own slogan.

• Keath Rhymer 3 months ago

  

  A holes a world of diference between chicken and kale.

• Ken Hildreth 3 months ago

  

  I think Chik full of *** is just that.Reminds me of Jimmy Buffet sueing a local restaurant named Margaritaville (Kingman AZ) because he said "I have all the rights to anything Margaritaville" Just another ***!!!!

• Oswald Lee 3 months ago

  

  Chick Fil A--really....didnt even know that was chick fil a's motto until this story.....they are coming off as the bad guys but also getting publicity......i think its a calculated marketing strategy to bring this lawsuit....but it could backfire..

• Judith Windsor 3 months ago

  

  I agree with the posts about making his living off of his foster kids. Excuse ME!? This should raise big red flags to the local foster care services. This guy is clearly a loser. If he said "This is my only income, I am a humble man who takes in foster kids." I would say fine. The truth is though, about the lawsuit that Chik fil a has a solid case. They pay all kinds of money for development of product slogans etc... and pay for trademarks etc... Why should this guy get to benefit from their financial investments? He just changes one word in the same category ie. food, and he claims its no big deal. He tries to paint himself as the every-man who is getting dumped on. I am not buying it. He is a slacker. He wants to gain financially from someone else's hard work. I say "GO Chik Fil A!"

  • Robin Pearce 3 months ago

    

    So that means that anyone who owns a farm or ranch is abusing children........... we always make our children help with the feeding and farming................... Bet my kids have a better sense of work ethics and if they become unemployed they will be out there hustling up a job instead of living on unemployment

• Vanessa Rhodes 3 months ago

  

  ROFLOL!!! Seriously our country is so self absorbed that they have to fight everyone so noone wins so dumb. When I saw the shirt Chick Fil A wasn't the first thing I thought of actually the thought that went through my head was mmmmmmmmmmmm I want to go to Olive Garden and had some Zuppa the potato kale soup lol not a chicken sandwhich so really people just get along.

• Kristina Hudson 3 months ago

  

  I think the tif with (honestly my favorite fast food) Chick-fil-A shouldn't be the issue here anymore. I think the fact that he is living off of his foster kids should be the real issue. I know what being a foster parent pays and I know how it pays: the welfare system. It's the same money. It's tax payer dollars from the government that pay foster parents for taking in these kids and it is NOT meant to be the only or primary source of income. Maybe he should stop fighting this giant and go find a real job. What he is doing is actually worse than someone sitting on their couch getting welfare & being lazy because this guy is using misfortunate children in a bad situation with their families as his main form of making a living. Shameful!

  • Lorin Reed 3 months ago

    

    you guys are missing the point. this guy never said that he "uses foster children to make a living". you're making him out to seem like a villian, based on reading between the lines where it is not needed. his saying "the foster parenting gig that pays the bills" is said in a manner of speech that conveys how little money he makes in general, and how so much less even, of that money, comes from his shirts. none of this means he is abusing children...this is, AGAIN, a manner of speech. you people do not know this man. he could be the best parent on the planet. back to the original part of this story though, which is the shirt-- i think that its pretty nonsensical for chik fil a to fight this guy about his shirt. he doesnt misspell the word "more" like they do, and he refers to a healthy food that shouldnt raise eyebrows at all compared to the harvesting of chickens for consumption. and telling people to "eat" something shouldnt ever infringe on someone else's slogan-- its like chik fil a declaring their own martial law, and its really kinda scary, and makes them seem like a slobbering, retarded giant. oh, and i had never heard of their slogan "ear mor chikin" until this article, and i hope that the youth of this country, more likely to be influenced by these slogans than any other demographic, have not heard it either. maybe misspelling words is cute when you're on the internet, but really? this this supposed to be "cute"? "eat mor chikin"? gross.

• Michael Myers 3 months ago

  

  I think if the Chicken Fast Food chain had a legal point, there are countless dozens if not hundreds of items being sold that violate some bodies "ideas". They are just ridiculous and if there was one of their fast food restaurants in my area (there isn't) I wouldn't eat there. Unbelievable that any company can be so arrogant.

• Bobbie Lowrey 3 months ago

  

  I for one am tired of these big corporations pushing around the little guy that is just trying to make a living. I am boycotting them and with the money i save am ordering an eat more kale t-shirt. I encourage you all to do the same. These big corporations are nothing without us "little guys" buying their products. We can send a strong message by boycotting them! Who's with me?

• E.Carl Mayo 3 months ago

  

  Does C-A-F have a case? NOHis brand is not a competitive product, and chick-a filet is trying to brand anything that says 'Eat More..' which is not their slogan. Their slogan is 'Eat Mor Chikin' If Bo really wanted to slap them in the face, he could change it to 'Eat Moore Kale' and defend his name, vs product. When you intentionally misspell something as a brand, that you can protect, but when it is common English you cannot trademark a common vernacular as yours.1: he is not in a competitive market2: he is not in a competitive food product3: his slogan is not related or spelled the same way as Chick-A-Filet4: it's is not a similar slogan - due to it's obvious correct spelling.If it was 'Eat Mor Kale' then they would have an issue. Unless some 'paid-off' of loose interpretating judge favors Chick-a-Filet. America - give us a break from litigious corporate lawyers! It's not the number of letters in the interpretation, it is the actual intent, or actual phrase. Not what "maybe interpreted" or "could be". You don't hear ABC fighting with NBC because 2 of the words are the same in their names.Side Note: you cannot dilute or confuse something that is not present in the area, since there is no market, how can damage be done. People are not going to his place instead of Chick-A-Filet.

  • BC Madre 3 months ago

    

    IT'S CHICK-FIL-A NOT CHICK A FILET ***!

• Knud Pedersen 3 months ago

  

  No case. The english language is not protected by copyrights.

• John Bone 3 months ago

  

  We need to get away from these fast food chains that are feeding us chemical burgers and killing us slowing but surely! Want the best food and beverages on the planet? Do the research on what they are putting in their food and check out this website: www.beyondorganicvisions.com/alive You'll be glad you did!

• Alexander Cardosa 4 months ago

  

  So billion dollar company is afraid of lone wolf that makes a few thousand dollar off a shirt business. Really. Reminds me of the problem we have with patents in the tech field. They will sue this guy into bankruptcy. Its all tax deductible in the end for the company. No common sense that what runs today's corporations.

• kcinmesa 4 months ago

  

  I think it's hilarious of chick-fil-a. Power to the people. My gosh, I'd guess what little he gets from kale or the t-shirts etc is nowhere near even so much as a drop in the bucket for the fast food giant. It's all about GREED, PURE AND SIMPLE!!!

• mothermunchkins 4 months ago

  

  Fostering is a gig?

  • Brittany Ornelas 4 months ago

    

    right?! wth is that gig

• James Katt 3 months ago

  

  This is all Chik-fil-A ***.Eat more steak. Let Chik-fil-A sue Texas Ranchers. They will get their chicken heads sent back to them stuffed in the rear.

• Jason Gac 3 months ago

  

  I just think that there needs to be a little common sense somewhere in the world. The two phrases are not at all the same thing, nor are they marketing the same products. Just last night I told the children to "eat more chicken" when they were not finishing their meals. Did I violate the copyright. I also noticed that the Mariam Webster dictionary on my shelf is copyrighted. Doe that mean no on can use any of the words in there? Let's get real people.

• Jim Leupold 3 months ago

  

  Really, Chic-fil-A? Really? You and KFC are lucky that the real facts aren't exposed. That the chickens you have produced have no life. They never see the light of day. Their beaks are cut off as infants so they won't peck each other to death when they're cramped 10 to a cage and maybe hundreds of thousands in one hell-hole of a building. They're fed hormone laden food so they grow freakishly fast and large so that they may be brutally killed, sharing all their germs and bird infections and cancers in a "fecal soup" they're all dipped in as their throats are cut......just so they can be butchered and fried so then we can deal with heart attacks, cancers, obesity and a litany of other wonderful human conditions. If the fast food industry weren't so incredibly huge and powerful, the LEAST they would have to worry about would be this gentleman who has nothing to do with them. So what if the American Cancer Society came up with an Eat More Broccoli campaign? Would Chic-fil-A go after them too? Sadly, yes, they probably would. Chic-fil-A infringes on the rights of common decency toward animals and create a "food" that is such a far cry from anything normal or natural. They hold tight to a lot of Christian values, but there's nothing Christian about treating animals that way....nor about trying to beat up a small business owner just trying to make ends meet.....just so they can protect their offensive slogan.

• Mike Andrew 3 months ago

  

  I like Chick-fil-A, but this is sad. First the font is not even close to the same. Second, no cows. Thrid, no misspellings. Fourth, a lot of people don't even know what kale is (I didn't), it's not even close to being confused with a chicken or cow. Fifth, parody and imitation have been protected for decades.

• Zoomer Lovell 3 months ago

  

  eat at joes

• ann guanella 3 months ago

  

  Although I love ChickfilA food I won't eat there anymore. Going after a small business, they should be glad that their slogan is imitated. Corporate Greed and Conceit is at work here. The words are ordinary, so I can't tell my kids Eat more vegetables without being sued. Let's get real here. ChickfilA should be boycotted.

  • Alexander Cardosa 4 months ago

    

    Greed so well said.

• Curtis Mease 3 months ago

  

  Hang in there Chick-fil-A. I can see how this explosive growth of the Fast Kale Drive-Thru's, nationally and internationally, is truly a threat to your successful business. The advertising or sloganing T-shirt is becoming such a powerful, mind-altering social control that the War Department is considering a campaign of "Do More Demokrasy" (not to usurp the REAL Democracy) T-shirts to distribute in Egypt and Iran and Iraq and Afghanistan and Korea and Somalia. Did I miss a few or a dozen? I have a question. What would lawyers do if they didn't have such earth shattering issues to pursue?

• Liane Laskoske 3 months ago

  

  Eat More Kale has nothing to do with Eat Mor Chikin. If he had Eat Mor Kale, I could see the issue, but his is different. How about these? "It's Good to be Kale." "Have Kale Your Way." "I'm Lovin' Kale." "Kale- It's What's for lunch." "I'd Walk A Mile For Kale." Chik-fil-A doesn't even have good food. I'd rather eat the kale. They should let the guy alone and go fry their greasy chicken.

• John Franklin 4 months ago

  

  I can understand the hard feelings everyone is expressing toward Chick-fil-A. But, if you want a villain, look at texisting trademark law and the courts. As someone who works in corporate advertising, let me tell you that most corporations really don't care about these small operations. What we care about are courts telling us that we can't enforce our own trademark against direct and incontrovertible infringement because we did not consistently enforce it against ALL infringements (including those that are very tenuous). Courts can then rule that trademarked names and slogans have entered the public domain. And it has happened many, many times. Including: aspirin, cellophane, escalator, thermos, windbreaker, yo-yo, zipper, and dozens more.

• Destructor2012 4 months ago

  

  They'd have a point if the guy was using cow/chicken imagery/logos or verbiage, but he is not, therefore there is no violation and any consumer who would confuse kale and chicken is a moron.

• Carol S 4 months ago

  

  I think it's ridiculous to try to put a small business under when they have nothing to do with yours. Perhaps we should all contact corporate and let them know how we feel. If we get a lot of people to voice their opinion that enough is enough it may make a difference.

• Kevin Hunt 4 months ago

  

  Burger King once sued a small restaurant called "Whopperburger". Whopperburger came before BK. The original "Whopperburger" restaurant was allowed to stay open, but the owner was prohibited from opening any new "Whopperburger" locations.

• Stinna Karch 4 months ago

  

  I think this reminds me of when my grandfather was forced to change the name of his doughnut shop some 25 years ago, because he was legally attacked by McDonald's Corporation. The name of his donut shop was McDonut, because his last name was McDonald, but just in case McDonald's EVER wanted to sell doughnuts he could not use part of his OWN name for his business. To my knowledge they STILL have never sold doughnuts, but I don't know for sure because I won't eat their horrible food. The big corporations like to flex their muscles and shove the little guy around every chance they get. That's why we should all support the small local businesses instead!

  • Jay Farrell 4 months ago

    

    Actually, McDonalds has sold mini donuts at some outlets, notably the huge McD's on 42d Street, Times Square, NYC.

• Wally Namer 4 months ago

  

  Hypocrites, Chick-fil-A is. Maybe they need to be in a communist country where they can try to control their competition (even though this guy is not even their competition!)

• Alan Chaillet 4 months ago

  

  many comments are 'well spoken'.... I thought more highly of Chick-fil-A, before this. I guess I will no longer 'Eat Mor Chikin' anymore. Greedy.

• Larry Vaughn 4 months ago

  

  I don't eat at Chick-fil-A because they can't spell and their food is too expensive. Eat and more are two words in the dictionary and lots of businesses use them. Imagine trying to trademark the word 'eat'.Or the word 'more'. Or even 'eat more'. Sorry Chick, I don't eat more chicken because of your silly phrase. It's not unique, nor very original, so stop intimidating the other guys. Instead, make a better product.

• Toni Lua 4 months ago

  

  You can't own the English language. He spelled things differently and nobody is going to confuse chikn with kale

• Bill Gerlach 4 months ago

  

  Like many, Chick-Fil-A uses its Christian beliefs when it benefits them. Hypocrites...What a surprise. I guess if corporations are willing to put up the money, they can trademark words. Tery makes an excellent point with his 'Got Milk?' example. It would only reinforce the original.

• Tery Robertson 4 months ago

  

  Wow. To be honest, this article has left me speechless. For years I HAD admired Chick-fil-a based on their Christian values. In fact, their official statement of corporate purpose says that the business exists "To glorify God by being a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to us. To have a positive influence on all who come in contact with Chick-fil-A." So Chick-fil-a -- if you're reading this...how does going after this guy have a positive influence on him, his foster children and those people who read this article? Shame on you. You and your powerful attorneys certainly do NOT walk the walk. Funny thing -- but the "Got Milk" slogan is so powerfully branded, that the milk advisory board doesn't have to go after anyone -- because all the other "Got _____" slogans simply reinforce the message and people understand that it's a rip-off. This proves that sometimes a company can be so overzealous that they make idiots out of themselves.Makes me feel like going into a Chick-fil-a and asking for an order of kale. If they don't have it, I'll sue for false advertising.

  • Dave Earthman 3 months ago

    

    Most astute comment on this thread Tery. Posted to my FB thread on this article. Thanks.

  • Amanda Dabb 4 months ago

    

    ^ Well Said. Well said indeed.

• Derek Barnes 5 months ago

  

  Does Chick-fil-A have a case? I couldn't say.*Should* Chick-fil-A have a case? I don't think so. Why should a single company get to own a phrase as commonplace as "Eat more ____" ? It would be one thing if another fast food restaurant were trying to use the phrase to sell its own chicken sandwich, but if someone in an unrelated field (and let's face it, kale is nothing like chicken) wants to exhort people to eat more of something, it should be allowed. I can't believe Chick-fil-A has been so thoroughly indulged up to now.Of course, Chick-fil-A has all kinds of issues... http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/chickfila-controversy/

• ? karen | moran ? 5 months ago

  

  What about the "got milk" campaign? I can't tell you how many times I've seen this used a variety of ways including a local Harley Davidson dealer who printed t-shirts that said, "got harley?"

• Danielle Favreau 5 months ago

  

  Are they going to try to sue Hershey's for their EatMore chocolate bar? Hershey's has owned that trademark since 1987, but Lowney owned it back to the early 20th Century.Perhaps Hershey's should sue Chick-fil-A and make all of their lawsuits null and void.