By Ramishah Maruf, CNN
New York (CNN) — The legal dispute isn’t about a specific recipe but the phrase itself and its implications in the competitive landscape of fried chicken.
Last week, KFC raised alarms by filing a lawsuit against Church’s Texas Chicken, alleging trademark infringement after its rival started incorporating the term “Original Recipe” in various marketing materials. KFC contended that on September 30, Church’s “abruptly” transitioned to using this key phrase, disregarding KFC’s formal objection letter dated October 24, highlighting its concerns over the promotional campaign. The contentious promotions featured enticing images of Church’s fried chicken, notably juxtaposed with text declaring: “our original recipe is back.”
KFC asserted that the phrase, which has been central to its brand identity for more than 50 years, is “likely to create confusion in the marketplace and dilute the ORIGINAL RECIPE® Mark.” This statement emanated from the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Texas.
“On behalf of all fried chicken lovers out there, we take it personally when another company tries to claim our iconic taste and branding as their own,” remarked a KFC spokesperson in a statement on Tuesday. “We remain committed to protecting our brand’s intellectual property and safeguarding the experience of our customers.”
In a strategic move, Church’s opted not to comment, citing the ongoing litigation as the reason for withholding any statements.
The timing of the lawsuit is significant, as KFC is currently grappling with sluggish sales performance. Parent company Yum! Brands reported during its earnings call last week that U.S. same-store sales had plummeted by 5%, marking the third consecutive quarter of downturns. Yum! Brands CEO David Gibbs pointed fingers at the intensified competition within the fast-food sector, particularly highlighting challenges in the chicken quick-service restaurant (QSR) arena.
“In the US, limited-time offers underperformed expectations due to a more intense competitive environment, particularly within the chicken QSR (quick-service restaurant) category,” Gibbs explained, underscoring the fierce market dynamics affecting KFC.
KFC had actively participated in the ongoing value wars, launching an array of “Taste of KFC” promotions to stay competitive against major players like McDonald’s and Wendy’s. Yet, KFC finds itself in direct competition not only with these fast-food giants but also with other significant fried chicken establishments including Church’s Texas Chicken, Popeyes, Raising Cane’s, and Zaxby’s, each vying for market dominance.
KFC’s “Original Recipe” trademark encompasses what the company describes as a closely guarded secret blend of 11 herbs and spices, an element that has been woven into the fabric of its branding for decades. Known as one of the most “iconic trade secrets in the food industry,” KFC first secured the trademark for this pivotal phrase back in 1984.
**Interview with Legal Analyst Jane Thompson on KFC vs. Church’s Texas Chicken Trademark Dispute**
**Interviewer**: Joining us today is legal analyst Jane Thompson to discuss the recent trademark dispute between KFC and Church’s Texas Chicken. Thank you for being here, Jane.
**Jane Thompson**: Thank you for having me!
**Interviewer**: KFC has filed a lawsuit against Church’s Texas Chicken over the use of the term “Original Recipe.” Why is this phrase such a critical issue for KFC?
**Jane Thompson**: The term “Original Recipe” is not just a marketing slogan for KFC; it’s a cornerstone of their brand identity. They’ve used it for over 50 years to differentiate themselves in a crowded market. In their view, Church’s use of this phrase could confuse consumers and undermine the uniqueness of KFC’s offerings.
**Interviewer**: What are the main arguments that KFC is presenting in this lawsuit?
**Jane Thompson**: KFC argues that Church’s abrupt shift to this phrase, especially after KFC expressed concerns, implies a disregard for their established trademark. They believe this could lead consumers to associate Church’s with KFC’s iconic branding, which could weaken their brand’s distinctiveness and ultimately harm their business.
**Interviewer**: Church’s has countered by promoting the back of their “original recipe.” How do you see this move in the context of trademark law?
**Jane Thompson**: It’s a tricky situation. While Church’s may argue that they are referring to their own recipe, trademark law doesn’t just protect literal expressions; it safeguards consumer perception. If consumers are led to believe that Church’s is offering a product similar to KFC’s simply because of the shared terminology, KFC may have a strong case.
**Interviewer**: What do you think the outcome of this lawsuit might be?
**Jane Thompson**: Predicting outcomes in trademark cases can be complex. If the court finds that Church’s use of “Original Recipe” is likely to confuse consumers, KFC could win the case and possibly receive damages or injunctions against further use. On the other hand, if Church’s can successfully argue that they are not infringing on KFC’s mark, they may prevail.
**Interviewer**: what does this dispute mean for consumers and the fried chicken market overall?
**Jane Thompson**: It highlights the competitive nature of the fast-food industry, particularly in niche markets like fried chicken. For consumers, it may lead to confusion about which brand they are associating with certain flavors or qualities. This legal battle could also set a precedent for how similar disputes are handled in the future, potentially impacting marketing strategies across the board.
**Interviewer**: Thank you for sharing your insights with us, Jane. This is certainly an interesting case to follow.
**Jane Thompson**: Absolutely, happy to help!
