Icing On The Cake: 3 Considerations For Protecting Recipes In Your Business

(Photo via Getty Images)

Vacations have a way of placing things in perspective, perhaps in unexpected ways.  As summer draws to a close, many (including myself) return from vacation harboring great memories of family and fun.  Sometimes that fun involves not just great locales, but great food and drink.  Being an intellectual property attorney, I couldn’t help but think about the great recipes and drinks I enjoyed and how they are (or aren’t) protectable.  When it comes to the restaurant and hospitality industry, such recipes require more than just mixing together the right ingredients in the right amounts, and oddly enough, developing intellectual property protection around them is not any different.

Let’s start with copyright law. To the uninitiated, you may not realize that recipes are not protectable subject matter under copyright law.  Although copyright law states that an original work fixed into a tangible medium of expression qualifies a work a copyrightable, recipes generally do not qualify.  Why?  First, recipes generally list specific ingredients and their amounts — unfortunately, such lists are not copyrightable subject matter.  As explained in Circular 33 of the U.S. Copyright Office entitled “Works Not Protected By Copyright”:

A recipe is a statement of the ingredients and procedure required for making a dish of food. A mere listing of ingredients or contents, or a simple set of directions, is uncopyrightable. As a result, the Office cannot register recipes consisting of a set of ingredients and a process for preparing a dish.

Even though there may be some effort and trial and error in getting the recipe “just right,” the simple truth is that the simple listing of ingredients and how to prepare them are not enough to qualify for copyright protection.

What about patent law?  Technically, the short answer is that such recipes may be protectable under patent law, but this is a difficult path to navigate here.  Although patents may be granted for any “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof” according to Title 35 of the United States Code, Section 101,  the invention would need to be novel and non-obvious to be patent eligible.  In other words, it is exceedingly hard for the recipe to contain a combination of ingredients that is “new” and not otherwise some variation of known ingredients.  Further, such combinations and/or variations may be “obvious” to someone skilled in the art (i.e., a qualified chef or experienced bartender).  I am not saying that it is not impossible to obtain patent protection, but in the context of most recipes, obtaining patent protection is just not a viable option.   Further, even if viable, the limited term of protection may not correlate to the long-term strategy of the business and should be carefully considered.

So what is left?  More than you might think, actually.  Trademark and trade secret law weave themselves quite nicely into the mix.  Most chefs are already keen on protecting their recipes as trade secrets — keeping the proportions, instructions, and other “know-how” in the creation of the foodstuff under wraps fits nicely into trade secret law.  That said, protecting such elements under an appropriate trade secret program requires that specific steps be taken to ensure protection under applicable state law. Trademark is also helpful in denoting a brand’s signature foodstuffs (such as Colonel Sanders’ Kentucky Fried Chicken mix of seasonings and preparation of signature fried chicken, et al.) and distinguishing them from others; however, it only designates the brand and does not protect the specific ingredients or processes.  Like a recipe that is not quite right, the intellectual property protection strategy here requires something “more.”

So what is a restauranteur to do?  Whether starting your own restaurant, creating a new menu in an existing restaurant chain, or anywhere in between, here are three considerations worth chewing on:

1.   Copyright Can Protect Certain Elements of a Recipe. Although procedures, processes, and methods of operation cannot be protected under copyright law, explanations of why a particular step or activity needs to be performed, as well as illustrations of such processes, are protectable expression.  Circular 33 specifically supports this proposition, stating that “a recipe that creatively explains or depicts how or why to perform a particular activity may be copyrightable [including] the written description or explanation of a process that appears in the work, as well as any photographs or illustrations that are owned by the applicant.” Granted, you do not want to rely solely on these elements for protection, but they should be considered when developing an overall intellectual property strategy for the food business.

2.   Trade Secret Protection Requires More Than Secrecy.  This point should be obvious, but you’d be surprised how often it is overlooked.  Of course, trade secrets enjoy such status by being, well, secret; however, qualifying as a trade secret under the applicable state law is not a given and should be carefully addressed.  For example, the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act not only requires that the information “derives economic value … from not being generally known,” but that “the owner of the trade secret has taken reasonable measures under the circumstances to keep the information secret.” What measures may be deemed “reasonable” are subject to interpretation, and navigating these requirements should involve competent intellectual property counsel.

3.   Trademarks Can Be a Recipe’s Next-Best Friend. Trademarks help not only distinguish goods and services, but also designate origin. When used correctly, trademarks can support a brand to which the consumer identifies and, therefore, operate to strengthen goodwill and affinity with your recipe (rather than a competitor). For example, a real Dark n’ Stormy is not just any dark rum and ginger beer, but Gosling’s Black Seal Bermuda Black Rum Since 1806 and Gosling’s ginger beer (and in the interests of full disclosure, I love the drink and absolutely agree). Granted, the brand is strengthened by their prepackaged version of the drink marketed under the same name, but you get point — trademarks can help round-out protection for the foodstuff if filed, prosecuted, and policed correctly.

Protecting recipes is anything but straightforward under intellectual property law, but after years of practice in the field, I am not surprised.  Protecting intangibles usually requires a layering of various forms of intellectual property to develop the appropriate level of protection.  When it comes to recipes, this is absolutely true.  So don’t get stuck with a bitter aftertaste and take the time to address these elements correctly — when you get it right, well, it’s just icing on the cake.


Tom Kulik is an Intellectual Property & Information Technology Partner at the Dallas-based law firm of Scheef & Stone, LLP. In private practice for over 20 years, Tom is a sought-after technology lawyer who uses his industry experience as a former computer systems engineer to creatively counsel and help his clients navigate the complexities of law and technology in their business. News outlets reach out to Tom for his insight, and he has been quoted by national media organizations. Get in touch with Tom on Twitter (@LegalIntangibls) or Facebook (www.facebook.com/technologylawyer), or contact him directly at tom.kulik@solidcounsel.com.

Federal Judge Royally Embarrasses Himself Hitting Reply All In Spat With Fellow Judge

All Judge Emmet Sullivan wanted was to alert the courthouse about an upcoming science seminar. It was exactly the sort of nice blast email that populates the inboxes of workplaces of offices across the country. Then Senior Judge A. Raymond Randolph had to barrel in with a reply all response that has the ethics folks looking into his judicial temperament.

Judge Sullivan gave everyone a heads-up about an upcoming event aimed at providing judges with a primer on the basic scientific concepts involved in climate change-related litigation. Fairly straightforward stuff about how carbon dioxide works that wouldn’t be out of place in a middle school classroom.

Judge Randolph replied to everyone that this was “nonsense” saying, “The supposedly science and stuff you are now sponsoring is nothing of the sort.”

Now, I’m not saying Judge Randolph is an ignorant dumbass — he’s actually saying that himself — but it’s an impressive display of judicial hubris to declare that, in his berobed opinion, he knows more about science than scientists. This guy is a step removed from an anti-vaxxer.

Thankfully, other judges jumped in and called Randolph’s response “accusatory” and “quite disturbing.” But what’s actually disturbing is that Randolph is actually hearing matters involving these concepts. Yet he says stuff like this:

Randolph viewed it differently, saying in his memo that judges attending a climate science program put on by the Environmental Law Institute “lend credence to one side of the climate change debate that is quite improper” because of a host of litigation on the issue.

Except it’s not a “debate” and pretending that it is requires remarkable and disienguous mental gymnastics. Ethics experts interviewed by the Washington Post indicated that Randolph should recuse himself from matters involving climate change in the interest of maintaining the appearance of impartiality. He was set to hear an appeal of the case against the EPA for rolling back emissions standards. He’s been replaced on that case, suggesting something may have happened. Whether this is a long-term fix or just Randolph laying low until this blows over remains to be seen.

A federal judge in D.C. hit ‘Reply All,’ and now there’s a formal question about his decorum [Washington Post]


HeadshotJoe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

Want To Be Happy? Don’t Be A Lawyer.

‘Why did I pick this career?’

Law students and attorneys are struggling with mental health and substance abuse issues, and it continues to be an unspoken reality in law schools and law firms across the globe. In fact, according to a 2016 study conducted by the Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation and the American Bar Association Commission on Lawyer Assistance Programs, 21 percent of licensed, employed attorneys qualify as problem drinkers, 28 percent struggle with some level of depression, 19 percent demonstrate symptoms of anxiety, and 23 percent are stressed out.

But does going to law school and becoming a lawyer cause depression? According to Alex Palmer, the author of “Happiness Hacks,” it certainly doesn’t help, and it likely doesn’t lead to much happiness. Here’s a relevent excerpt from his recent CNBC piece about how to achieve long-term happiness.

5. Don’t be a lawyer

Maybe it’s all the lawyer jokes, but those who practice law have been found to be particularly unhappy. A 1990 study from John Hopkins University found that lawyers were 3.6 times more likely than non-lawyers to suffer from depression. Researchers point to three main reasons as to why lawyers have a hard time finding happiness:

  1. Prudence is one of the main qualifications for lawyers, which can often translate to skepticism or pessimism.
  2. The high pressure put on and low influence given to young associates are the sort of work conditions that result in low morale in other workplaces.
  3. The work — at least in the U.S. — is often a zero-sum game where your win is someone else’s loss, creating a hyper-competitiveness that also drains one’s sense of workplace satisfaction.

No one is saying you can’t find happiness as a lawyer, but sad as it is, the deck may be stacked against you. Best of luck as you attempt to beat the odds.

Most law schools have counseling and psychological services resources that students and graduates can turn to if they are in crisis or would like counseling, even after hours. If these services are not available at your school, and if you or someone you know is depressed and in need of help, please call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline (1-800-273-8255) or a lawyer assistance program in your state (don’t be fooled by the name; these programs also provide services to law students). Remember that you are loved, so please reach out if you need assistance, before it’s too late.

Don’t retire early, buy a home, or be a lawyer if you want to be happy, researchers say — here’s why [CNBC]


Staci ZaretskyStaci Zaretsky is a senior editor at Above the Law, where she’s worked since 2011. She’d love to hear from you, so please feel free to email her with any tips, questions, comments, or critiques. You can follow her on Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.

Daniel Pantaleo Fired, But NYPD Commissioner Still Feels Bad For The Officer

Eric Garner

New York City Police Commissioner James O’Neill just announced that he has decided to fire police officer Daniel Pantaleo, the man who killed Eric Garner in broad daylight.

Commissioner O’Neill announced the termination during one of the most victim-blaming speeches I’ve ever heard. O’Neill repeatedly blamed Garner for his own death: he accused Garner of resisting arrest, repeatedly; he accused Garner of trying to put Pantaleo through a window; he said he watches the tape (of Garner’s murder) and wanted to tell Garner “don’t do it,” just like he wants to tell the same to Pantaleo. At the very least, he blamed Eric Garner’s health for his death. “I’m sure Mr. Garner did not think himself in such poor health that a brief altercation with the police would result in his death.” The whole speech resurfaces the fundamental police lie that somehow “resisting arrest” is a capital offense on the streets of New York City.

O’Neill, responding to a question, says, “Every person who protects this country looks at that tape and thinks ‘that could possibly be me.’” MOTHERF***ER, everybody BLACK looks at that tape and thinks “that could possibly be me.” The police have authority to end my life BECAUSE I’m black, and all O’Neill can think to worry about is how the cops are going to take it because “one of their own” got fired for killing a man?

Despite the extreme pile of BS shoveled out by O’Neill, he eventually reached the right conclusion. He said that while Pantaleo was justified in initially applying the chokehold that killed Garner (f**k you), he concluded that at the point he was on the ground, gasping for air, BEGGING TO BREATHE, Pantaleo probably should have released his grip. He talked about how Pantaleo was trained to not use that technique, specifically because of how dangerous it is, and his refusal to release it must have consequences.

I’m sure the New York Police Union will bitch. Which is great. Instead of making a strong statement that the murder of unarmed black people will not be tolerated by this department, O’Neill made it seem like cops who will soon be out of the streets brutalizing black people are kind of justified.

NYPD is the freaking worst. If New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio had any freaking strength, he’d fire O’Neill for this press conference alone. The black and brown residents of New York City deserve a police commissioner who isn’t so desperate to whitesplain the cops who murder us.


Elie Mystal is the Executive Editor of Above the Law and a contributor at The Nation. He can be reached @ElieNYC on Twitter, or at elie@abovethelaw.com. He will resist.

I Just Want Your DNA

If police come to your home and ask for DNA, would you give it, or would you demand some kind of warrant first?  You might also want to hear some reasonable explanation of why your DNA is being requested.

What if you knew that DNA matches aren’t as infallible as television portrayals?  Instead, they depend on the quality of the sample, how many other people’s DNA are mixed in, and the algorithm the particular forensic lab uses to determine probability statistics. A “match” can mean a lot or a little.  It all depends on how trustworthy the comparison is.

Finally, what if the DNA taken from you, even as an elimination sample, was to be kept indefinitely in a database without your knowledge or consent.

The actual taking of the DNA isn’t the problem.  It’s a relatively quick and totally painless process. DNA in the form of saliva is “harvested” from inside your mouth by rubbing a Q-Tip or small brush.  The sample is then placed in a sterile envelope and sent to a lab.  The profile generated (called an electropherogram) will be clear-cut and pristine, made up of a series of peaks that provide a presentation of your genetic makeup.

The problem is that the sample taken from your mouth is then compared with samples from crime scenes that are generally not as pristine.  The grip of a gun, for example, that has been handled by three or more people, might have barely enough DNA to compare to yours, and would show a mixture of DNA. However, labs could still compare that sample to your DNA and if your DNA does not affirmatively eliminate you as a contributor, you could still be included as a suspect.

Mixed-source DNA, especially when the crime-scene sample is as small as a pinprick, makes comparisons especially difficult and dangerous to suspects whose DNA profiles do not eliminate them from all suspicion.

DNA databases are growing nationwide.  I’ve been seeing more and more instances where DNA is gathered surreptitiously to establish probable cause to arrest, rather than to strengthen a case once the suspect has already been arrested. It’s not uncommon for police to offer suspects cigarettes or glasses of water in order to use the discarded cigarette butt or straw for DNA testing.  They might offer a suspect a can of soda, not to quench his thirst, but to have a surface from which to collect DNA.

I’ve known police officers who have searched garbage pails for anything that might carry DNA, including dirty diapers to establish paternity in family court cases.

Nowadays, it’s standard that people arrested and convicted of crimes provide DNA, even for misdemeanors.  Yet more and more DNA is getting into databases not because people have been arrested or are suspects, but as a shortcut around investigations.

In the recent high-publicity murder case of Karina Vetrano, a young female jogger in Queens, police sought saliva samples from 360 black men in Brooklyn and Queens. According to reports, many of the men were cajoled, coerced, and even threatened to give their DNA samples.

Once given, the samples went into databases even if those men were eliminated as suspects in the crime.  This goes for victims of crimes, too.  Their DNA is routinely collected to distinguish their biological material from that of the perpetrator and later stored indefinitely in the databases.

Without the regulations that govern the FBI or state medical-examiner data systems, police bureaus that collect DNA have fewer restrictions on how and when the data can be used, and how long it will remain in the system.

Even DNA from people who do ancestral testing can find its way to those databases.  According to reports, some of the major companies that provide DNA ancestral testing share their information with law enforcement, ostensibly to solve crimes.  Police cracked the case of the “Golden State Killer” in 2018 based on a comparison with the DNA of the killer’s relative.

An estimated 10 million people have had their DNA ancestry traced and there’s more every day.  That’s a lot of DNA data being shared without the providers’ permission or knowledge.

Maybe it doesn’t matter to those people if they’ve never done anything wrong and have no fear of being sought by police.  But for people who don’t even like to use E-ZPass because it gives the government a way of tracing them, I imagine this makes them uncomfortable.

Plus, even if you’ve done nothing criminal, think about your weird Uncle Louie.  He’s still part of the family.  Would you want to inadvertently turn him in?


Toni Messina has tried over 100 cases and has been practicing criminal law and immigration since 1990. You can follow her on Twitter: @tonitamess.

Demystifying Blockchain: Katherine Lowry Invites You To Build A Blockchain At ILTA

This week, ILTACON 2019 will be held August 18-22, in Orlando, FL. Attendees will have the opportunity to attend a four-part series on the hot topic and still mysterious cluster of technologies known as blockchain. The program is the brainchild of Katherine Lowry, Director of Practice Services at BakerHostetler. I recently interviewed Lowry to gain some insights into the evolution of her interest in blockchain in the law and her goal in designing the ILTA program.

According to Lowry’s LinkedIn write up, attendees who come to the “Blockchain series will have the opportunity to demystify and learn the practical impact of blockchain for lawyers.” Below is a description of the sessions which will run Monday through Wednesday at the ILTA conference in Orlando.

The series facilitator is Amy Y. Wan, CEO, Sagewise & Bootstrap Legal. The sessions and speakers will be:

  • Building-a-Blockchain live (without computers) to bring clarity on how permissioned and permissionless blockchains work, but most important, identify what problems are solved using this technology. Speakers: Diana J. Stern and Christian Smith
  • Demonstrations on how blockchain technology can be used to support practical business applications today! Speakers: Peter Buck, Hal Marcus, and Daniel Rice
  • Smart contracts developed LIVE! Speakers: Carla Reyes and Henning
    Diedrich (@hdiedrich)
  • Industry mapping of blockchain-based consortia and hear market leaders reflect on the future of blockchain. Speakers: Nita Sanger, Jay Hull, and Adrienne Valencia Garcia

I asked Lowry how she became interested in blockchain. She pointed to a 2015 article in The Economist entitled, The Trust Machine. She began to have discussions with her firm’s CIO, Bob Craig, on how to turn blockchain into a transformative business model. For several years, Lowry and Craig had been involved in developing a technology segment for the firm’s partner retreat. They shared the Economist article with lawyers and that triggered deeper conversations about innovation within practice groups. The firm hired a consultant, Mark Smalley, who helped them develop a “master class” for attorneys on probable uses for blockchain. The firm decided to form a “blockchain team,” including lawyers and technologists which explored research and development opportunities that focused on evaluating client needs. What are the pain points or white spaces where blockchain could address a client issue?  Ultimately, this all led to the creation of a 10-person innovation team known as IncuBaker, which Lowry oversees. Blockchain technology is just one of the projects that this team supports. The team includes a blockchain developer and an IT systems architect.

I asked Lowry how her prior experience or training helped prepare her to take on blockchain projects. Lowry, a lawyer by training, was drawn to using her legal knowledge to address legal technology issues rather than practice law. She worked for a large legal information vendor, became a software programmer, worked as a consultant, and as an in-house trainer. In all of these roles, she found that her focus was always on trying to improve the existing tools with new enhancements or improving workflow by creating completely new solutions.

In the 10 years that she has been at Baker, Lowry’s role has expanded from overseeing research services to include managing IT training, overseeing a project management team, and now driving innovation. She was given the autonomy to both create solutions and drive adoption. Lowry emphasized the importance of building bridges between IT and the lawyers. Since the launch of IncuBaker, her role has required extensive client outreach. In her current role, she meets and interacts directly with clients several times a week. This has enabled her to understand that clients and law firms often have very similar needs. As if her day job were not demanding enough, Lowry started a Cincinnati Blockchain Meetup Group which now has almost 400 members.

I asked Lowry to describe what her goal was in developing the blockchain program for ILTA. Lowry hopes that attendees will have an “a-ha” moment in which blockchain is demystified. Success would mean that attendees leave the program with an understanding of what blockchain is, how it works, and recognize the types of problems it can solve. Blockchain is not a single technology — it is a suite of solutions which can solve problems relating to the order and validity of transactions. The first session of the ILTA program will break down blockchain transactions using humans rather than computers to illustrate exactly how blockchain components interact. The second and third sessions will show blockchain in conjunction with specific business applications, such as digital signatures and validation of documents.

Session 4 will provide an overview of blockchain consortia and the future of blockchain. The session will map consortia by industry and identify likely future developments. Lowry sees blockchain opportunities in supply chain, digital identity, and interoperability between systems.

Not everyone will be ready to embrace blockchain technology when they leave ILTA. Lowry would regard the program as a success if attendees are simply no longer be confused and intimidated when they hear the word “blockchain.”


Jean O’Grady is a knowledge strategist/librarian/lawyer with over 30 years’ experience leading the transformation of research and knowledge services in Am Law 100 law firms. She is the author of the Dewey B Strategic blog, which monitors the evolving landscape of technologies and companies that are transforming the business and practice of law.

Trump Asks Jamie, BriMo And Corbat “WTF Is Happening To My Market, You Guys?”

So even the White House doesn’t know who’s running Wells Fargo.

Police, soldiers deploy in Bulawayo as opposition challenges protest ban – The Zimbabwean

BULAWAYO, Zimbabwe – Soldiers and police deployed in large numbers in Zimbabwe’s second city Bulawayo on Monday to enforce a ban on an anti-government demonstration, as the country’s main opposition party sought to overturn that decision in court.

The street protest was the second called in four days by the Movement for Democratic Change’s (MDC), which accuses President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s government of repression and economic mismanagement.

Authorities had also banned Friday’s gathering in Harare, intended as the launch event of a nationwide protest movement. The MDC called it off, saying it aimed to avert bloodshed after police there rounded up its followers and dispersed them with batons and water cannon.

In a similar show of force in Bulawayo, an MDC heartland, authorities prohibited the march on Sunday and on Monday sent soldiers in trucks into the centre of the city and nearby townships, bolstering police who patrolled on foot and lorries, witnesses said.

Businesses remained open and residents circulated as normal in the city, however.

David Coltart, an MDC senator from Bulawayo and lawyer, called the ban “clearly unconstitutional and unjust”, and told Reuters the party had lodged a court appeal that city magistrates would hear on Monday morning.

Attacks on tobacco bosses don’t indicate an industry at war: FITA – The Zimbabwean

FITA chairperson Sinenhlanhla Mnguni says the two incidents — while concerning — don’t indicate an industry at war.

JOHANNESBURG – The Fair Trade Independent Tobacco Association (FITA) said two incidents involving tobacco businessmen don’t indicate an industry at war.

Simon Rudland, co-owner of Gold Leaf Tobacco Corporation, was able to drive himself to hospital after he was shot in Norwood on Thursday.

In June, Adriano Mazzotti, director of cigarette company Carnilinx, was attacked when he was visiting family.

FITA has condemned all acts of violence.

“I think at this stage to term it a war will be adding fuel to the fire, and we aren’t certain at this stage what are the reasons. And if they are related.

“It would be too sensational to put it in that way as part of some war at this stage,” said chairperson Sinenhlanhla Mnguni.

Rudland was quoted as saying after the shooting that he was 100 percent sure a FITA member was responsible.

Mnguni says Rudland must allow the law to take its course.

Police have opened a case of attempted murder and continue with investigations.