IPC pushes back against widespread use of trademark

By SEAN ELLIS

Capital Press

A letter sent to Idaho growers by the U.S. Potato Board didn't do much to solve the group's disagreement with the Idaho Potato Commission over a national potato trademark and may have exacerbated it.

The USPB, the nation's potato marketing organization, believes its "Potatoes -- Goodness Unearthed" logo is an important nutrition message and should be included on retail packaging.

The IPC, representing the nation's largest spud-growing state, doesn't want it used at the retail level because it believes it will conflict with Idaho's "Grown in Idaho" seal and confuse many consumers into believing they are buying Idaho potatoes when they're not.

The groups have been at odds over the use of the logo for several months. The issue came to a head recently when the IPC discovered Wal-Mart intends to start using the PGU logo on its retail bags Sept. 1.

Both sides still downplay any talk of a rift, but things have gotten a little chippy since the USPB sent Idaho growers a 12-page letter July 25 detailing its stance.

IPC President and CEO Frank Muir was unhappy with the content and tone of the letter, which was signed by USPB Chairman Todd Michael.

It challenges the commission on several of its claims and uses previous quotes by Muir and other Idaho industry representatives to allege the IPC was aware from the get-go that USPB intended the logo to be used at the retail level.

It also points out the IPC has approved the use of the logo on 20 different bags and bin designs that also include the Grown in Idaho mark.

"I find it puzzling to learn that IPC approved the use of the Idaho seal in conjunction with (PGU) on bag and bin designs as recently as October 2010 but is now objecting to the use of (it) on retailer packaging," Michael states in the letter.

IPC commissioners received the letter during their monthly meeting July 26. They said it caused them to question the sincerity of the USPB's willingness to find a solution to the issue.

Muir said the quotes, timeline and information in the letter are taken out of context and miss the IPC's main point: that the USPB has lost control of the logo and is allowing it to be used as an industry trademark instead of a nutrition message.

Muir said the IPC has been clear from the beginning that it is opposed to the logo being used as a trademark at the retail level.

He said he never agreed to the creation of a national slogan and "Anybody that conveys I did is not conveying the truth."

Muir said to be a good industry partner, the IPC allowed three shippers to use bags with the PGU logo. But two things have since changed.

First, Colorado, Michigan and Wisconsin are now effectively using the logo as their trademarks, Muir said. The PGU mark covers the entire front of bags from shippers in those states.

Second, Wal-Mart's plan necessitated IPC respond forcefully to prevent widespread similar use by other retailers, he said.

Idaho growers pay 3 cents per hundredweight to the USPB and account for about one-third of the group's funding.

"The Idaho growers are big contributors to this industry and should have some say on whether or not a trademark funded by Idaho should even exist."

Muir said research shows consumers already believe 80 percent of fresh potatoes come from Idaho, while only 30 percent actually do. Given the choice, 90 percent of consumers say they would choose Idaho potatoes.

"Other states already benefit from Idaho's brand halo," Muir said. "Any additional national trademark intended to be on all retail bags exacerbates the problem," he said.

In its letter, the USPB offered to revise the group's PGU guidelines to clearly prohibit its brand-like use and establish a trademark review committee to review each application to ensure each use of the logo adheres to the new guidelines.

Michael said the proposal followed a "full and open debate" of the issue at the USPB's July 13 meeting.

Muir said the IPC's biggest concern is that the USPB has not controlled use of the logo and the letter doesn't provide any guarantees that will change.

"The bottom line is they have not spelled out in that letter the details of what we are agreeing to," he said. "We do not know the details of the rules or how they will enforce the rules and penalize those who do not follow them."