A new food u.l. re: "chicken"?
LordStupid
me if my research was inadequate or otherwise flawed...
The other day, someone dropped the following on me: there is a reason why KFC
(formerly known as "Kentucky Fried Chicken") and Boston Market (supposedly
formerly known as "Boston Chicken") changed their names. The alleged reason is
that the product these companies sell as "chicken" is so pumped up full of
steroids, growth enhancements, and other chemicals, that the end result is no
longer truly the meat of a "chicken." Hence, the aforementioned
establishements were legally required to change their names.
A great story, but it immediately raised a u.l. flag in my mind. Among other
factors doing so, it struck me as odd that the restaurants in question would
have to change their names, but could still sell the product as "chicken" in
their menus. Also, I can't recall ever hearing of a legal definition of
"chicken" based on the amount of chemicals, hormones, etc. that have been used.
Anyone else ever hear this one?
-chuck
Tom
I don't know about Boston Chicken, but Kentucky Fried Chicken changed
to KFC because the 90's had a major movement or rejuvenation of the
"health-conscious individial". The word "fried" took on a negative
connotation that many people frowned upon. Kentucky Fried Chicken
wanted less focus by the public on the fact that their food was
"fried" and deemed unhealthy. And, they also wanted a name that had a
little more of a trendy ring to it. Change with the times and all
that business. I remember this from an article in a news magazine
somewhere but I can't give you exact references....so take this for
whatever you think it's worth.
David Tarkowski
>B.S.
>
>I don't know about Boston Chicken, but Kentucky Fried Chicken changed
Now that you mention it, I remember Boston Chicken taking on a lot of debt
to finance a lot of franchising and expansion based on their then current
rate of growth. They found out, however, that past performance is not
indicative of future gains and had to do some reorginization. I believe
that this was the time that they changed their name.
-Dave "I always perform" Tarkowski
--
"Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball" -SNL
David Carey
LordStupid wrote in message <19990328233420...@ng30.aol.com>...
>Boston Market (supposedly formerly known as "Boston Chicken") changed their
names
>
Boston Chicken did change the name to Boston Market. The idea was to show
that Chicken was not the ONLY product sold there. They also had Turkey, Ham,
Meat Loaf, and other entrees.
It didn't work, the last I heard they were in bankruptcy.
DC
Bruce Tindall
>Now that you mention it, I remember Boston Chicken taking on a lot of debt
>to finance a lot of franchising and expansion based on their then current
>rate of growth. They found out, however, that past performance is not
>indicative of future gains and had to do some reorginization.
You mean they counted their markets before they hatched?
And now that they're bankrupt, they're putting all their beggs
in one askit?
B "guess the yolk's on them" T
--
Bruce Tindall :: tin...@panix.com
D.F. Manno
lords...@aol.com (LordStupid) wrote:
> The other day, someone dropped the following on me: there is a reason why KFC
> (formerly known as "Kentucky Fried Chicken") and Boston Market (supposedly
> formerly known as "Boston Chicken") changed their names. The alleged
reason is
> that the product these companies sell as "chicken" is so pumped up full of
> steroids, growth enhancements, and other chemicals, that the end result is no
> longer truly the meat of a "chicken." Hence, the aforementioned
> establishements were legally required to change their names.
>
> A great story, but it immediately raised a u.l. flag in my mind.
As far as Boston Market is concerned, the chain changed the name to make
the point that it served more than just chicken.
--
D.F. Manno
domm...@netscape.net
"If we didn't laugh we would all go insane." -- Jimmy Buffett
yu...@bgs.com
dtar...@mediaone.net wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Mar 1999 06:37:08 GMT, Tom <fai...@airmail.net> wrote:
> >B.S.
> >
> >I don't know about Boston Chicken, but Kentucky Fried Chicken changed
>
> to finance a lot of franchising and expansion based on their then current
> rate of growth. They found out, however, that past performance is not
> that this was the time that they changed their name.
>
> -Dave "I always perform" Tarkowski
>
> --
Actually, they changed their name earlier, actually during their expansion.
They added meat loaf, turkey, and ham to their menu, and became Boston Market
to recognize this.
Joe "yeah, but have you had any growth? " Yuska
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Ray Depew
>
> David Carey <david...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> : Boston Chicken did change the name to Boston Market. The idea was to show
> : that Chicken was not the ONLY product sold there. They also had Turkey, Ham,
> : Meat Loaf, and other entrees.
>
> it applied to Boston Market as well as KFC.
>
> --Art
I thought that the deal with KFC was that they wanted to distance
themselves from "Fried", not from "Chicken".
R
R
Ben Walsh
>I thought that the deal with KFC was that they wanted to distance
>themselves from "Fried", not from "Chicken".
There are theories which attach to every part of the name.
1. "They dropped the 'Kentucky' part because the Commonwealth of Kentucky
charges royalties for commercial use of the name."
2. "They dropped the 'Fried' part because they wanted to distance themselves
from the unhealthy image of fried food."
3. "They dropped the 'Chicken' part because the beasts they use are hideous
doped-up monsters that can't properly be called 'chickens'."
The official reason given by KFC/Tricon [1] is #2.
The real reason is #1.
ben
Jerry T. Aguinaldo
change had to do with a royalty dispute of a trademarked name.
http://www.snopes.com/lost/kfc.htm
Tom wrote:
> B.S.
>
> I don't know about Boston Chicken, but Kentucky Fried Chicken changed
> to KFC because the 90's had a major movement or rejuvenation of the
> "health-conscious individial". The word "fried" took on a negative
> connotation that many people frowned upon. Kentucky Fried Chicken
> wanted less focus by the public on the fact that their food was
> "fried" and deemed unhealthy. And, they also wanted a name that had a
>
> little more of a trendy ring to it. Change with the times and all
> that business. I remember this from an article in a news magazine
> somewhere but I can't give you exact references....so take this for
> whatever you think it's worth.
>
> On 29 Mar 1999 04:34:20 GMT, lords...@aol.com (LordStupid) wrote:
>
> >I searched the FAQ and Deja News, but didn't find anything about this. Forgive
> >me if my research was inadequate or otherwise flawed...
> >
> >The other day, someone dropped the following on me: there is a reason why KFC
> >(formerly known as "Kentucky Fried Chicken") and Boston Market (supposedly
> >formerly known as "Boston Chicken") changed their names. The alleged reason is
> >that the product these companies sell as "chicken" is so pumped up full of
> >steroids, growth enhancements, and other chemicals, that the end result is no
> >longer truly the meat of a "chicken." Hence, the aforementioned
> >establishements were legally required to change their names.
> >
TMOliver
> Ray Depew <ray_...@hp.com> wrote:
>
> : I thought that the deal with KFC was that they wanted to distance
> : themselves from "Fried", not from "Chicken".
>
By Golly, had they changed it to Boston Meat Loaf, they could have
avoided bankruptcy and made the direct step to full scale liquidation.
--
TMOliver, el pelon sinverguenza
From a small observatory overlooking McLennan Crossing
- VESPER ADEST IUVENES CONSURGITE -
Catullus
Dr H
On Wed, 31 Mar 1999, TMOliver wrote:
}
}> Ray Depew <ray_...@hp.com> wrote:
}>
}> : I thought that the deal with KFC was that they wanted to distance
}> : themselves from "Fried", not from "Chicken".
}>
}
}By Golly, had they changed it to Boston Meat Loaf, they could have
}avoided bankruptcy and made the direct step to full scale liquidation.
Except they probably would have been sued by the Boston Beer Company...
Dr H
LordStupid
>>
>> 1. "They dropped the 'Kentucky' part because the Commonwealth of Kentucky
>> charges royalties for commercial use of the name."
>> 2. "They dropped the 'Fried' part because they wanted to distance themselves
>> from the unhealthy image of fried food."
>> 3. "They dropped the 'Chicken' part because the beasts they use are hideous
>> doped-up monsters that can't properly be called 'chickens'."
>>
>> The official reason given by KFC/Tricon [1] is #2.
>>
>> The real reason is #1.
That doesn't sound right...in order to demand royalties, Kentucky would have to
have a valid copyright or trademark. Because we are talking more about
business than creative expression, trademark would be more applicable. As a
general rule, one cannot trademark the name of a geographical location (i.e. a
state). An exception might be made if the name of the place is linked with the
trademark holder's business in the public mind. Regardless, I've never heard
of a state, city, county, etc. that could collect royalties for commercial use
of its name.
-Chuck