Skip to main content

New Youtube Post

 


Transcript

King’s Hawaiian the best thing to come out of Hawaii other than getting drunk and embarrassing your family at a tiki bar.  The company has been in the news recently over a a rather unusual court case that has been filed against it. A man in New York has filed a class action against bread maker alleging that the company misled him into believing that the rolls are actually made in Hawaii. Robert Galinsky is pursuing a class-action lawsuit against the company claiming unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud. Which if he’s correct is fair enough, if a company claims to have some quality of origin but actually doesn’t then, that’s false advertising and there should be repercussions for those actions. 

But just like when you are found by your family passed out in the bushes behind the tiki bar that you were kicked out of the night before, the real story is much more complicated thatn that. You see, King’s Hawaiian did originally start in Hawaii in the 50’s but eventually switched to California in the 70s when production capabilities outgrew Hawaii. Which King’s Hawaiian say they have been pretty clear about. They have even put it on their packaging. And there is a good reason for that. Although some states, such as California and Hawaii have considered a 'Made in Hawaii/California' labelling protocol, these laws have never progressed from the drafting stage.

For food products, Section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930 is the most protection that requires that most food products must bear a country-of-origin label on their packaging. However, it does not extend to individual states of the USA. This section was recently enforced in the case of Federal Trade Commission v Bollman Hat Company, where a company was labelling their hats with labels such as 'Choose American' and 'Made in the USA since 1868' even though up to 70% of their products were imported from other countries


So country of origin labels are a good thing, that allow consumers to properly identify the where the products they buy come from. But there is still a long way to go with them. because that little tag on the inside of your shirt or on the back of your bottle of milk isn’t always able to convey the complexities of that answer. Just last year the USDA admitted that ‘Product of USA’ tags were at best ‘misleading to consumers’ drawing from one example where imported cattle that were slaughtered in America were labelled as product of USA.  Which is the equivalent of saying that you were invited to a family dinner when you just passed out in the hedges next door. 

Not long after Obama was first elected in 2008, mandatory COOL, which would make producers list every country that all food was brought in by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. By 2015 it was struck down by the WTO, with Mexico and Canada successfully arguing the policy put cattle and pig producers in those countries at a disadvantage. Australia faced similar pressure last year when it considered adopting an approach which would make all products require a Country of Origin tag.  



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

OFF-BRAND - How a high-fashion brand and a local ice cream shop have come to blows over intellectual property

OFF-BRAND  How a high-fashion brand and an ice cream shop have come to blows over intellectual property In the various industries that are out there, not too many are as different as fashion and ice cream. One is involved in providing happiness, comfort and everything nice in this world and that other provides a sharp reminder that maybe that extra scoop of ice cream was too much. But suffice to say, a rift between the two industries is not something that you would expect to find.  But as hype culture and the obsessive fandom on the internet have grown, the industries have been growing closer and closer together. But sadly, not in the way you think, we are still a few years off wearable ice cream. Instead, there is now a good chance that your local ice creamery sells merchandise. Less impressive, for sure. But this has become a staple for restaurants with even just a modicum of goodwill attached to their name and why not? If customers are willing to pay an extra $50 so that people will

Green Eggs and Hamm

  Green Eggs and Hamm How a crotch shot of John Hamm and Dr Seuss have sparked the most intense debate on fair use dealing in copyright in the last ten years.  In 2013, John Hamm was in full swing, sipping cocktails and filming the wildly successful  Mad Men  however in years to come he may be remembered for something much more different. One uneventful day, John Hamm was photographed going commando and, thus changed how we see intellectual property rights on the internet forever.  Like all paparazzi photos, it was promptly uploaded to the internet and licenced for use. Unbeknownst to the photographer, the image was then used in an article by the Huffington Post, titled "25 Things You Wish You Hadn't Learned In 2013 And Must Forget In 2014." The writer of the piece turned the photo into a humourous GIF with the intention of mocking people who would want to see the picture and satirising the idea that it was news at all.  The photographer later registered the photo's

Woman Wins Copyright Case Against Adult Film Studio Who Recorded Videos In Her House.

A recent case in the United States District Court of Massachusetts has seen a woman whose house was used as a film set for adult videos without her knowledge be awarded damages… but not for what you think. In  Bassett v Jensen,  Ms Bassett, the owner of the property, signed an agreement with a renter to lease her Martha's Vineyard property for seven months for the sole use of Mr Spafford and his family. Spafford had moved to Martha's Vineyard to work as a photographer and cameraman for an adult film director. Throughout the lease, Ms Bassett claims that 21 different videos were filmed at her property. Following the end of the Lease, Ms Bassett had to stop renting out the property as there was significant damage caused to the building and later due to the publicity that the property was used in filming the videos. Ms Bassett then argued that not only did the video showcase her property but they had infringed her copyright on numerous of her self-made artworks which were hanging