Protecting Trademarks in copy?

So, I'm not in sports anymore ... instead reporting on a niche manufacturing industry. This past week I wrote a story about a product and worked with the company that made it and it's PR team. They provided replies via email and we focused on one ingredient in the product because it was a new type that had moved from an experimental name to a commercial name.
Story posted and all was fine and dandy. I got an email yesterday from the ingredient company asking us to add a registered trademark to our copy & to delete the words "previously known as" in my article.
"The second change is particularly important. Since the trademark was just awarded, the trademark office periodically reviews print and digital media referencing the product, and they specifically look to make sure the mark is not presented as a replacement for the patented name... "previously known as" is one of the phrases we were told to specifically try to avoid. It's important that this is presented as the brand name associated with the patented variety."

I shot them down with a polite email and explained AP copy doesn't use trademarks in copy and figured that would be enough. They come back asking to still eliminate the "previously known as" in my article.

Am I being overly sensitive to this or are they just being over the top? How do I nicely tell them I see no reason to adjust my copy because they don't like the way it's phrased? I can see if it was wrong info, but it's not.

 

I vote they are being over-the-top.

It's your job to be as clear as possible, so there's no confusion or gray area with your readers. Referring it to "previously known as" does that. You are referring to it under the current brand name, and if they got into a fuzzy middle zone with the trademark, that's on them and not you.

 

I'm debating if I reply with "that's on you, not me," ... but in the nicest way possible! LOL

 

Really, isn't the only question whether it would adversely affect your story if you included that? I mean, if there's no reason to go hard-ass on it, don't go hard-ass on it.

Or even better, can you say the decision's above your pay grade and get someone else to draw the line?

 

If it’s a highly competitive environment, I get the company’s beef. If their trademark is registered and there is still some confusion created in the “marketplace,” another company/product may get a different trademark registered that supersedes the original company’s.

Also, referring to “AP style” to non-journalists as justification for your actions is beyond pointless. You might as well quote the Hogwarts Book of Spells.

 

I guess I'm confused now - is this product similar to another product that is still out there, or is it basically a replacement for another product?

The "previously known as" makes me think this product is a replacement for something that used to be available.

 

I was thinking about it like this: Company A and Company B develop the same product. Both companies file for a trademark — Company B gets it. If it’s not enforced, the ensuing potential for confusion makes it possible that Company A will get the trademark after all.

At least, that’s my cursory understanding as a neighbor of a patent examiner.

 

I tried to generalize it, but it's hard to do without just explaining the whole thing. Probably just easier to spell it all out! LOL

This is a hop variety, used in beer. The way the process goes for hops is that it's called by a number first (usually 3 or 4 digits) and used by just a few breweries to see how it works (tastes, smells, etc). After a few years of it being an "experimental" hop and known by the experimental name (AKA the number), the company will start to grow more of it and eventually give it a brand name (like Citra, Mosaic, Simcoe etc.).
I interviewed a brewery that used this newly branded hop by it's new name in a beer and wrote about it from that angle. In the story, I added background on the hop and how it was discovered, which led to mentioning it's experimental name.
Now the hop company "cold called" (cold emailed? LOL) me to ask me to make changes to my copy, which I find odd since I can Google this hop name and the experimental number is in copy many other places as well. I also have written similar stories like this mentioning experimental hops that have new commercial names and have never been asked to get rid of "previously known as," so I just found this odd.
I guess I just hate that in this day and age people think they can ask to have things changed because they don't like the way it looks or line up to their standards of PR. It's not factually wrong so I see no need to change it.
I will say, if they were a paying advertiser and we had a working relationship, I'd make concessions (at least with this aspect of the phrase... but the using of a trademark notation in copy (in this case an R, not TM) I'd never agree to.)

 

You are in PR now. It’s a different world. If the patrons in Bob’s Country Bunker want to hear their favorites, you should be ready to belt out Rawhide and Stand By Your Man.

 

The biggest hurdle I had to overcome when moving from journalism to corporate PR communications. "This sounds like shit!" ... "Too bad, the CEO wants it to sound like this. Make your peace with it."

It sounds like this is the exact same thing, just with an "evolved" name. I guess if this could lead to complications in the working relationship down the road, I'd consider changing it. But my initial reaction remains to say your phrasing is making it easier for readers to understand. And the R/TM request can fuck right off.

 

But I'm not in PR. We are an outside entity covering the industry.

 

Oh. Then as long as your boss is good with it, then tough shit to them. But there may still be back-scratching considerations in play.