Adventist Company Trying to Protect its Trademark on “Granola” in Australia
by AT News Team
The cereal giant Sanitarium Foods is threatening small, independent restaurants that make their own “Granola” because the company, owned by the Seventh-day Adventist Church, holds the trademark on that word in Australia. At least, that’s what Jared Ingersoll, proprietor of Danks Street Depot in Sydney, told The Sunday Telegraph.
Considering how much publicity he got out of the story, it is possible to wonder if he simply made it up. Australians are known to love an underdog. Sanitarium Foods would only confirm to the newspaper “that Granola is a registered trade mark … and has been held by the company in Australia since 1921.” The reporter complained that corporate offices were “closed for religious observance reasons” on Friday afternoon.
“It is believed others have been contacted by Sanitarium,” the copyrighted story by Elizabeth Meryment said. “Mr. Ingersoll said it was overkill to employ lawyers to pursue small operators over a commonly-used name.”
Granola is a word in the same class with “Xerox” (meaning a photocopy) and “Hoover” (meaning a vacuum cleaner). A trade name can become so successful that it makes its way into general usage in the English language. When the founder of Adventist health care, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, invented the product it was actually called Granula. A competing company produced a similar product and first used the name “Granola,” which Kellogg’s brother and business manager later bought the rights to.
There are many thousands of Adventists and others who make their own mix of nuts, grains and other things and call it Granola. There could be hundreds of variations on the recipe. As it is trademarked by Sanitarium Foods, Granola includes oats, wheat, corn, rice, sugar, sunflower oil, dried apple pieces, corn maltodextrin, salt, wheat gluten, barley malt extract and flavoring.
According to The Sunday Telegram, Ingersoll’s version is made from rolled oats, almonds, pepitas, hazel nuts, cashews, walnuts, maple syrup, butter and cinnamon. He toasts in his kitchen and serves it with pear yogurt. He has removed the word “Granola” from his menu, replacing it with “Cereal Nuts” and an explanation that it is “not you know what … you can’t use that name.”
“This is an example of an institution that is on the defensive because it does not know what to do with its success in the mass culture,” an American observer told Adventist Today. “Adventists have for generations defined themselves as a small, marginalized sect. When they come to a position of real influence, even in something as simple as breakfast cereal, they are instinctively defensive and usually do not come up with ways to leverage that influence for larger goals.”
Don't tell the Creation Seventh-day Adventists!
Adventism was born during one of the more "materialistic" centuries of the modern era (the 1800s, or Victorian Century) and most organizations that came into being during that time seem to have inherited an inordinately fundamental concern regarding money. It was a century of great poverty and great wealth, and most of the religious groups organized during that time seemed to appeal primarily to the have-nots—and we often (conveniently) point the finger at the LDS and say, "See there, a religious group that's clearly and overwhelmingly dedicated to material success in the here-and-now." This may or may not be so, but it's telling that one consistent foible we demonstrate as human beings is a tendency to denounce and/or criticize in others that which we are most guilty of (or have been most guilty) ourselves (reformers, beware!). There is significant data that indicates that many who joined Adventism during and immediately following the 19th century did so with a concurrent goal of rising socioeconomically, and seeking the blessing of God to help them do so (windows of heaven, et al) and eventually expecting Him to hand them title to a gated community of gold in a land far better far than anything short of Eldorado.
Yes, Adventists are known as being very generous, but not as buisiness people in local communities. I must admit that in certain places where I have lived, I have tried to AVOID business interaction with known Adventists. Why? Because the bottom line in the short haul seems so much more important to them than building relationships for the longer term. Since Jesus is coming soon, somehow we feel that we will not have to endure the repercussions of "short" treatment of our neighbors and even fellow members. As mentioned above, as a bit of a critic, I know it affects my behavior too, and I wrestle. It is good to see that the church's stewardship program at least in some respects is now addressing issues beyond questions of money and fund-raising. Life is so much more than this….
I am at a loss to understand some of the commentary posted here.
Sanitarium is a ver successful food company in the south pacific. It handles that success well, and has very astute business people running that business. It's brands, weetbix and so good are market leaders in their categories, and other brands such as marmite have a passionate following. The commitment to a promotion of a healthy lifestyle are well known and regarded, in the business and general community.
Successful business creates strong brands. And those who are creating these brands defend them. McDonald's, apple and Microsoft all defend their brands. Should sanitarium not do the same. If a brand name is not to be lost, it needs to be defended wherever a breach is identified. No exceptions.
Long gone are the days when sanitarium quivered over its success. It can rightfully hold its head high over its missional purpose and business prowess.
This is the key quote from the story: "Adventists have for generations defined themselves as a small, marginalized sect. When they come to a position of real influence, even in something as simple as breakfast cereal, they are instinctively defensive and usually do not come up with ways to leverage that influence for larger goals.”
Such a mindset plays into the wider picture (I note the reference to Creation SDAs above!). Instead of trying to shut others down for "trademark infringement" why not capitalize on the opportunity?
All such legal actions do is to portray the church in a very negative light and are light-years from the message of Jesus. In fact such actions may well come back to bite us. I understand for example that even the word "Adventist" has been trademarked, a widely-used term that is used in the names of churches not assocated with the GC of SDA–for example the Free Seventh-day Adventists and the Seventh-day Adventist Reform Movement. Once a case is lost on the name since it is used and has been used generically, then the final state may well be worse than the former.
I see little benefit in suing others in such a way, and much to be lost.