Intellectual Property (IP) enforcement is often laden with emotion, particularly amongst creative individuals who are key drivers of our economy. The dynamics of this legal field become particularly charged when celebrities are involved, as their IP enforcement cases often generate a high levels of media interest. A recent example of this is renowned chef David Chang’s controversial attempt to assert the “Chile Crunch” trademark associated with his popular Momofuku Chili Crunch chili oil.
What had begun as what Chang may have perceived to be a routine sending of cease and desist letters swiftly took an unfavorable turn, with accusations of cultural misappropriation and boycott threats requiring the chef to issue a swift public apology.
Interestingly, this is not the first time that Momufuku has sought the aid of IP lawyers to protect its rights. In 2022, the company issued a number of cease and desist letters to competitor restaurant business, Yuzu Kitchen. The dispute revolved around Yuzu’s use of a peach logo which Momofuku found offensive. Prior to any substantive action being taken, the case was settled.
The complexity of Chang’s experience extends beyond defending his own IP rights. In 2022, he found himself on the receiving end of IP assertion. Namely, Momufuku’s Chili Crunch product, launched in 2020, was the subject of a trademark lawsuit filed by Chile Colonial. Despite the legal adversity, Momofuku managed to purchase that mark as part of a settlement.
In parallel to this, the company filed a trademark application for the “Chili Crunch” mark. They went on to send cease and desist letters to several companies selling Chili Crunch products, many of which were small businesses founded by Asian Americans.
However, Chang’s action was met with immediate backlash, with him being dubbed a trademark bully. His decisions were seen as discriminatory and damaging to small businesses. In an attempt to defend its position, Momofuku claimed they were simply fulfilling a legal requirement that trademark owners must police their marks. This explanation failed to placate those affected.
The negative fallout forced Momofuku to acknowledge that their actions created a painful divide between them, the Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) community, and their competitors.
Chang’s experiences serve as a clear reminder of the complexity and sensitivity surrounding IP disputes. It also exemplifies the power of public opinion and how it can function as an equalizer for small businesses facing aggressive trademark actions. In the case of Momofuku, it appears that their endeavour to protect the “Chili Crunch” trademark only served to highlight the gap between the legal expectations of trademark policing and public perception on what’s considered fair.