(via directmag.com)

It could be 2012 before there is a final decision on whether companies offering products to help fight bulk, unsolicited e-mail can trademark the word ?spam? in their names, according to the attorney representing Spam Arrest in its battle against Hormel.

Hormel, maker of the canned meat product SPAM, is embroiled in more than 80 trademark disputes trying to stop companies in the unsolicited e-mail blocking and filtering market from trademarking the word spam in their names.

So far, only Spam Arrest has been able to get a trademark on its name and all other spam-related patent applications are pending. Hormel has been trying to get Spam Arrest?s trademark canceled since 2002.

As a result, other anti-spam technology firms, such as Spam Cube, are watching the Spam Arrest case. If Spam Arrest wins, so do they.

The lawyer representing Spam Arrest, Derek Newman of Newman & Newman in Seattle, said he expects the U.S. Patent and Trademark office to reach a decision late this year or early next year.

?There probably won?t be a decision until 2007,? he said. However, he added, the loser will most certainly appeal the Trademark Office?s decision in court.

?I know our client?s not going to stand for it if the TTAB [Trademark Trial and Appeal Board] rules against them,? he said. ?It could very well be 10 years before there is a final decision.?

He added that he believes the reason it has taken so long to get even this far is that SPAM is a high-profile trademark and the TTAB is trying to be careful not to make the wrong decision.

Newman also said Hormel is using an argument he has never seen in a trademark dispute. ?Their argument is that when ?spam? is used in connection with a trademark that is an identifier of the source or quality of goods or services, that consumers recognize it as identifying Hormel.?

The word ?spam? is not used in any trademarks accept Hormel?s and Spam Arrest?s, Newman added.

?They [Hormel] will concede that spam means e-mail in the generic sense, but they argue steadfastly that the word spam used as a trademark uniquely identifies them, and a consumer will be confused if they see the word spam in a trademark associated with anything other than their goods.?

Newman also said: ?The TTAB is famously brand friendly ? so they very well may rule in Hormel?s favor.?

Hormel in June walked away from a dispute with British firm NetBop Technologies over its attempt to trademark BopSpam, a product designed to filter unsolicited e-mail, when it became clear in a preliminary hearing that EU officials were leaning in NetBop?s favor.

The NetBop dispute is believed to be the Hormel?s only defeat on either side of the Atlantic in its defense of its SPAM trademark.