Hardee's False Advertising the Big Shef

Maybe it's funny unless you consider that Hardee's only brought back the Big Shef- or their version of it- to try and fight off a legal challenge to their ownership and rights to the Burger Chef name, logo and other trademarks. This has been reported in the news. Hardee's only brought back the Big Shef after a legal challenge was filed with the US Patent and Trademark Office by a Chicago based brand revitalization company called River West Brands. Their "Big Shef" promotion began about 1 month after being informed about the legal challenge. Basically, Hardee's has been caught not using the trademark in the past 6 years and was/is in danger of losing it. I for one hope Hardee's loses it.

I want the Hardee's Husky burger to come back. It was my favorite burger of all times.

quote:

Originally posted by SassyGritsAL
I want the Hardee's Husky burger to come back. It was my favorite burger of all times.

When I was a kid and played little league, everyone who hit a home run got a coupon for a free Husky. If you hit a grand slam you got a coupon for a Deluxe Husky.

THOSE were the days.

Thanks,

Kevin

The plot thickens. When MrKing.net originally posted, it was because he was expecting to get the same burger as he did back in the day. I did a lot of research at the time, mainly as an intellectual curiousity. I never did find any information about River West Brands. What I did find was a track record of marketing people at Hardees bringing back abandoned food items. Nothing wrong with that,as long as people will not cry "fake" when trying new versions of an old favorite.

Thanks to lordhdr for updating the thread. After only a few keystokes on Google, I found this forum entry related to a story in the Indianapolis, Indiana "Star" newspaper. They have a few loose cannons post on that board, but it is one of the best newspaper boards out there. Anyway, their readers weighed in on the issue:
http://www.topix.net/forum/source/indianapolis-star/TPADUKECTRROBD972

I have this personal opinion that the US Patent and Trademark Office aids and abets consumer fraud. If a company gets sold and the new owners do not continue the same exact product line for, say, 10 years, the trademarks should be embargoed for 99 years. If a company goes bankrupt, the trademarks get embargoed for 99 years. Take Schlitz beer. How many people still drink Schlitz beer? Does the swill that Miller/SABC produces for Pabst (Pabst doesn't even own/operate their own breweries anymore) taste exactly like what Schlitz brewed in Milwaukee 50 years ago? I can't even drink the stuff anymore.

So, this could go two ways. River West Brands could start a new chain selling Big Shefs exactly like MrKing.net remembers them. Or they could sell sandwiches on hamburger buns with Taylor Pork Roll A/K/A Taylor Ham instead of beef patties and call them Big Shefs. Or it could be a corporate shakedown preying on lame corporate legal departments who don't keep a suspense file.

David,

You make a good point. I won't argue trademark policy with you, but there is no reason to believe that removing the Big Shef name from Hardee's ownership will resurrect the old burger.

McDonalds, Burger King, Wendy's, KFC and virtually every other trademarked brand has changed over time. Coke today is not the coke of years ago (and don't forget new coke which Coca-Cola was perfectly within its rights to pass off as the real thing!).

The best chance any Big Shef lover has of getting their favorite old burger is probably to revive the Burger Chef system, open using different names, and hoping there is enough market interest to support the concept. I'm not banking on it.

If the BURGER CHEF restaurants can be brought back, as its own entity, none of that hardees/carl jr. crap, then you may be surprised at how its recieved.

As BURGER CHEF was started here in central indiana, there are many, many people who have great memories of it, and would welcome it back with open arms.

Hardee's (or Carl Jr.'s if you live out west) has never done well here in my area, or really any area that ive seen for that matter. Although I do believe that Carl Jr.'s does MUCH better than Hardee's does for some reason.

When Hardee's bought out Burger Chef, Burger Chef, I do believe, was in the #2 position and climbing on McD at the time.

Burger King uses the old Burger Chef broiler to make its burgers, that much right there should tell you that Burger Chef knows a bit about making burgers, if you were never able to eat at one.

I honestly believe, that if the Burger Chef Brand is brought back, as if it never left, then Hardee's/Carl Jr's door's would be closed soon after, they just couldnt compete. Wendy's would be in trouble and even the Mighty Burger King and McD would be worried, and rightly so.


I'd really love to see PepsiCo get ahold of the Burger Chef License and bring it back.

Damn, I want a Burger Chef Cherry Pie right now!!!!

It's my humble opinion that if we truly would like to see a Burger Chef revival, then all of us who want that need to let Hardee's know. They could easily use the brand to open stand alone Burger Chef restaurants, co-brand, partner with someone like River West to make it happen or just let go of the brand all together to allow it. The only way they will get the message is to be told.

I understand the false advertising issue, but restaurants DO change their recipes / configurations. Another example from a crap fast food chain...the Taco Bell Enchirito. Originally used a real tortilla and topped with ripe olive slices. Gone for years and brought back with a die-cut tortilla and no olives. WTF???

quote:

Originally posted by rkendrick

I understand the false advertising issue, but restaurants DO change their recipes / configurations. Another example from a crap fast food chain...the Taco Bell Enchirito. Originally used a real tortilla and topped with ripe olive slices. Gone for years and brought back with a die-cut tortilla and no olives. WTF???

I remember that!

For the past year, I have been living in Vietnam. I am a fast food freak... I admit it.

Vietnam doesn't have most of the same fast food chains you expect to find in Asia. We don't have McDonald's or Burger King or Wendy's. We do have KFC, Pizza Hut, Pizza Inn, California Pizza Kitchen (which they call Cali Pizza, so I boycott them for not respecting my home state), and Baskin Robbins 31 Flavors (which they spell "Flavours").

We are supposed to get McDonald's before the end of the year. Having lived in Indonesia 12 years ago, I know the hamburgers that they will sell here won't be the same as what I could get back in L.A.

1. The burgers will be smaller. Vietnamese are smaller people than Americans, even Asian Americans.
2. The seasoning will be done to accommodate Vietnamese tastes, not those of expatriates.
3. Not every item available back home will be available here.
4. The burgers will be prepared by people who will be paid half what Americans earn doing the same thing to support twice as many people.
5. The price of a Quarter Pounder, if offered, will cost roughly the same as what an average Vietnamese day laborer earns in six hours.

I saw the complaints about Burger Chef and the Big Shef available at Hardee's/Carl's Jr. Hey, Mr. King, it sounds good to me. I miss a good American hamburger.

The only hamburger chains we have here are Jollibee (Philippines) and Lotteria (South Korea). All the hamburgers have sesame oil and hoysin sauce.

Typed Drawing


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Word Mark BIG SHEF
Goods and Services (EXPIRED) IC 029. US 046. G & S: READY-TO-EAT HAMBURGER SANDWICHES. FIRST USE: 19650501. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19650501
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number 72248388
Filing Date June 20, 1966
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Registration Number 0868449
Registration Date April 22, 1969
Owner (REGISTRANT) BURGER CHEF SYSTEMS, INC. CORPORATION INDIANA 1350 STADIUM DRIVE INDIANAPOLIS INDIANA
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator DEAD

It's funny that they sent you coupons for chicken sandwiches and thickburgers and not the Big Shef

Andrea

Burger Chef was the KING in Indy. I liked the huge SUPER CHEF.  Then they added the mascots & the "Tater-com-pu-tator" & etc. Beginning of the end. This topic has been funny, informative & brought back memories.

I can't think of  many fast food signature items that come out the way they look in their advertisement photos.  I think the Big Mac comes the closest, and if you want to see something that looks NOTHING like its adverstisement photos go try a KFC Famous Bowl.  I haven't had one but my husband has and it looked like something that would be in a pig trough.
 
Andrea

I'm with Pete---what a surprise--a fast food place is selling a lousy burger!!! You don't REALLY expect some kind of great quality product from ANY fast food place---do you? Come out to Oklahoma and i will take you out for onion burgers---or a Meersburger--genuine grass fed longhorn beef handmade and fresh ground!---Now THAT"S a burger!

Hahahhahahahahhaha me to and i read it so i guess im a loser to.

Huh?

I haven't seen them advertise this since this post was posted. 2 yrs. ago
I could go for a Big Shef now.
what would be better is a steak sandwich they had in the 70's that nobody on this site remembers.
I'll take 5 right now.

I wished they would bring the Huskie back but I am sure it woudn't taste the same as it did.

it's all bosh!
If a company owns a trademark they can do with the product what they'd like. If Kleenex sold their company to SnotRag, Inc, and SnotRag, Inc  wanted to sell tissues called Kleenex made from sandpaper, there's nothing you can do about. There's nothing illegal about that. They bought the company, they acquired the trademark in the sale, and since it's their property, they can do with it as they please (within the law, of course). when someone purchases a company, the trade names and product names are crucial in the sale. In fact, it's often the name recognition that sets the price. So, if the original company was so bent on keeping the sandwich exactly as it was originally made, they shouldn't have sold their property to another compnay. If I sell my car to someone, and they want to put a big, gaudy spolier on it, as ugly as I think it may make my old car, it's not my car it's theirs. If they change the shape, they can do that. They bought it, they can put what ever they want on the car. It's their property.

The whole basis of this thread is a waste.

What makes it even more a waste is that it's not even a current thread.  It started in 2007 and a new poster decided to respond as if it was posted yesterday.

I finally found the smoking gun.

Dictator:
Why, after coming come home to find their wife in bed with another man, do so many men pull  out a gun and start to shoot people, possibly including themselves?

We don't know much about MrKing.net, except that he felt betrayed by Hardees. Note that the original poster started this thread in May, 2007. You repeat the correspondence between the MrKing.net and Hardees. Surely you did not know about this trademark challenge filed by River West Brands in January, 2007:
http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/ttabvue-92046880-CAN-1.pdf

Hardees never told MrKing.net about this trademark challenge, either.

I and others here went round-and-round on this issue until lordhdr blew the whistle with his post at the top of this page, dated 08/16/07 at 12:28 AM.

You should be able to get some sense why MrKing.net was outraged after reading this profile on River West Brands (the firm that filed the trademark challenge) by the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/magazine/18rebranding-t.html

The Patent and Trademark Office has a list of all filings in this case here:
http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92046880&pty=CAN&eno=4/

Looks like there was some "understanding" reached here:
http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/ttabvue-92046880-CAN-32.pdf

Note that this whole matter was just put to bed less than two months ago.
 
If you go through all the filings and look at all the photographs posted by MrKing.net here on RF, you will see that Hardees used the Burger Chef logo in advertising in May 2007, shortly after River West went after Hardees. The Big Shef federal trademark is dead, but I have not researched state trademark filings.

Now, if you were a production manager and the lawyers came screaming at you that you must resume production of an item not sold for 6 years and your suppliers told you to pound salt when you wanted a three layer bun, what would you do? Do like Hardees did and offer a burger made from the same ingredients you were already buying, but just rearranged a little. Currently, I can't find any Hardees sandwich offering that uses a three layer bun.
 
EDIT: I tried to buy some of the brands River West brought back. No sign of the Nuprin at my CVS, who bought the brand from RW. Can't find any Eagle Snacks, either. Their web site, enjoyeagle, is parked at GoDaddy.
 
And strictly for laughs:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4106531/Smuckers-v-River-West-Brands-Complaint

Scorereader


it's all bosh!
If a company owns a trademark they can do with the product what they'd like.

It was only after reading the lawsuit that Smuckers filed against River West that what Scorereader wrote in his three posts in this thread, both in 2007 and now, fully sunk in.
 
For now on, I'm not going to let my blood pressure go up again when I find some guy trying to put one over on me. I am simply going to ask for my money back - in cash - on the spot. For example, one reviewer found the Nuprin-branded pills sold by CVS no longer yellow, which is how Upjohn originally manufactured the ibuprofen pills and Bristol-Myers distributed them. In such a case, I would simply take take back an opened bottle to CVS and demand a refund because the pills were no longer yellow.

you probably won't get your money back, but you would know to never buy the product again since it no longer lives up to your image of the product.