直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

INCONTESTABLE® Blog

“Eat More Kale” Mark On The Road to Registration

January 06, 2015

Authored and Edited by Julia Anne Matheson; Danielle Wright Bulger

Despite receiving a demand letter from fried chicken chain Chic-fil-A objecting to his EAT MORE KALE mark based upon its own EAT MORE CHICKEN mark, a Vermont t-shirt maker is one important step closer to achieving a federal registration for his brand.

Moore’s mark received increased publicity after the public posting of a 2011 cease and desist letter from Chick-fil-A. The restaurant claimed Moore’s mark EAT MORE KALE was likely to cause confusion with its trademarked slogan, "Eat Mor Chikin," and that the mark diluted the distinctiveness of Chick-fil-A’s intellectual property. The letter went on to site approximately 30 other examples of “Eat More…” slogans whose owners agreed to stop use of the term upon receiving a letter. Moore claimed the restaurant demanded that he shut down his website, discontinue printing his merchandise sold commercially since 2003, and send his inventory of t-shirts, stickers and more to Atlanta to be destroyed.

Following the posting, fans of the t-shirt maker gathered to create support groups and publically name the restaurant a trademark bully. “Chick-Fil-A is trying to put one Vermonter out of business for using the phrase ‘Eat more Kale’. They need to be stopped! Support Bo Muller-Moore,” read the description of one Facebook group.

Despite the assertive demand letter, Chick-fil-A apparently chose not to oppose the EAT MORE KALE mark when it published for opposition. As a result, the applicant recently received a Notice of Allowance, and thereby time to perfect his application with evidence of use. It seems in this dispute, merits aside, David has beat Goliath.

Tags

dilution, trademark bullying

Copyright © 2015 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 


DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Related Insights

Reception

2026 IPO Education Foundation Awards Dinner

December 15, 2026

Washington, DC

Conference

IAM Live: Navigating the UPC 2026

November 3, 2026

Paris

Conference

2026 AIPLA Annual Meeting

October 29-31, 2026

Washington, DC

Conference

4th Global Patent Litigation FORUM

October 29, 2026

Munich

Conference

2026 EDTX Bench Bar Conference

October 28-30, 2026

Fort Worth

Seminar

Future IP UK

October 21, 2026

London

Conference

ChIPs Global Summit 2026

October 21-23, 2026

Los Angeles

Hybrid Conference

Intellectual Property Law Institute 2026 – California

October 19-20, 2026

San Francisco

Conference

31st Annual UMass Chan Research Retreat

October 14-15, 2026

Worcester

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP