http://gma.yahoo.com/doughnut-muffin-hybrid-causes-controversy-uk-193743001--abc-news-lifestyle.html
This article details a controversy stirred up by Starbucks' new food item, the "Duffin".
A Duffin is a hybrid of a Doughnut and a Muffin, and as the article details, a Google search of Duffin brings up many recipe's and variations of the culinary blend.
The issue is not that Starbucks is selling Duffins, but rather that they copied the recipe of Bea Vo's Duffin in specific (owner of Bea's of Bloomsbury, a bakery that has sold Duffin's since 2011).
Starbuck's offered no credit to Bea in their debut of their Duffin, and even went so far as to trademark the name Duffin.
That is where it gets interesting for me. Taking the idea of what should be copyrighted and what shouldn't be in the art world is one thing. But thinking specifically on food items brings a new angle to the issue. The article includes Bea Vo commenting that we'd have 100 names for Caesar Salad if we started trademarking names of kinds of food.
She likens it to "owning" the word cupcake so that nobody else can make "Cupcakes".
(I must say here, that there is no question that Starbucks did not invent the Duffin, they were simply the first to Trademark it and tried to slip it through the masses.)
So on the one side, you have the very real and logical argument that it would be silly if only the first creator of an "Omelette" was allowed to sell "Omelette"s because they trademarked it after they cooked it. (And the fact that we would then have a thousand names for Omelette)
On the other side, we have large restaurant's and other food/drink establishments that need to preserve the integrity and value of certain creations. McDonalds wants a "Happy Meal" to only be available at their restaurant for example.
Yet again, some people need the Copyright, and in other cases it is just silly.
Even in the culinary world this stuff is important!
-Thomas Holland
No comments:
Post a Comment