Idaho Fry Company: Trademark protection can be messy

Photo: USDA

By now most Boiseans have probably heard of the conflict between the Idaho Fry Company and the Idaho Potato Commission over the use of the name "Idaho" in connection with potato products. The disagreement was resolved yesterday with the fry restaurant agreeing to change its name to Boise Fry Company, and the IPC reimbursing them for associated expenses.

The resolution appears to most favor the soon-to-be Boise Fry Company. In addition to reimbursing the restaurant, the IPC appears to be allowing use of "Boise" which sources indicate they also have trademarked. The IPC has received significant negative press over the situation and was likely eager to settle the matter quickly.

Yet the situation is more complex than a simple David vs. Goliath legal fight. Trademarks and copyrights both have value only if consistently defended. The IPC has invested significant resources in building and protecting the "Idaho Potatoes" brand. Indeed, Idaho potatoes are famous around the world, and are inextricably linked. Tell an Australian you are from Idaho and chances are they will responded with, "Oh yeah, where the potatoes come from".

Going after small businesses such as Idaho Fry Company is not something the IPC likely enjoys, but in the eyes of the law all companies are created equal. If the IPC fails to protect its brand against a restaurant near downtown Boise it allows a legal opening for a big company like Birdseye to start using "Idaho Potatoes" in its packaging and marketing without sufficient licensing. It places the IPC in the sometimes-awkward position of having to defend the brand indiscriminately.

It should also be noted that it is not unreasonable for customers to expect that, with a name like Idaho Fry Company, all the potatoes served there would come from Idaho, when such is not the case. The business serves potatoes from many states, not just Idaho. By implying that these out-of-state potatoes come from Idaho, the restaurant could be considered to undermine the Idaho brand. In fact, according to KTVB, origin-labeling on the company's menu was part of the name-change agreement.

Statements by both parties also suggest that negotiations over the name change were proceeding amicably before the story broke in the local news and stirred up controversy. It is likely that controversy that led the IPC to make concessions they might not have made otherwise. Certainly the controversy has helped the restaurant, where business has been booming lately. And thanks to that controversy, when the name change comes in August very few customers are likely to be confused by it.

The situation reinforces a key business concept of risk management. Take the time to ensure your company name is free of legal complications. Intellectual property rights must be vigorously defended if defended at all--no matter the public relations cost. The agreement between these two parties is a textbook example of risk management on both sides.