Beyond the fame gained as a heavyweight boxer, becoming world champion in 1973 and 1994, George Foreman has become a brand recognized for a wide range of quality products. In fact, the name has become so famous as a product brand that many of the younger generations have come to know the famous character through the products sold under this brand. Foreman himself admits that he gained more fame and wealth as product endorser than I thought possible.
The brand sells everything from electrical products to clothing, cleaning products, low-fat products compatible with the grill. However, the most notable of this series is the George Foreman Grill produced by American marketers Salton Inc.The company owns trademarks and trademark registrations for the GEORGE FOREMAN brand in the United States and elsewhere for products used to prepare, cook, serve food and beverages since 1995.
In 2002, George Foreman concluded an agreement with an entrepreneur to launch a line of meat products and other foods. The company became George Foreman Foods Inc. and it was going to cause a whole series of problems. Foreman is currently fighting to terminate the contract on the grounds that the company introduced products it did not approve, such as old frozen coffee and meat products, putting Foreman’s image at risk of becoming overextended.
On the other hand, Salton Inc., filed a complaint against George Foreman Foods Inc. before the Center for Arbitration and Mediation of the WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) on September 24, 2004, alleging that the use of the web domain by part of the food business www.georgeforeman.com violated Salton’s registered trademarks in the name.
While looking at the matter from a holistic point of view, the complaint seems fairly well founded, as the use of the domain by the company creates the possibility of “confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website, “as Salton alleged.
However, WIPO, while admitting that the domain name is identical to the trademark Salton has rights to, agreed that George Foreman Foods did have rights to the disputed domain name. The complaint was denied.