[nathannecro]

I've had to deal with my fair share of frivolous lawsuits (the ADA is a well meaning, poorly implemented set of rules).

However, in this case, I wouldn't classify Sheehan's work as being parasitic. Companies are obviously being misleading and deceitful in order to sell more of their product. It makes sense to me that someone is out there holding their feet to the fire and forces them accurately market what they make.

[A_D_E_P_T]

I don't think it's obvious at all. "Smokehouse" can simply refer to an added smokey flavor. I don't think it's _necessarily_ implied that their product _has_ to be smoked according to any particular method, or it's falsely advertised. 11 lawsuits for that?

[nathannecro]

If one were to advertise an added smokey flavor, then marketing it as "smokey" or "smoked" (assuming the product was actually smoked) is correct.

Just like how 'organic' has a specific definition, a 'smokehouse' is: "a building where meat or fish is cured by means of dense smoke" [0]. So if the product is not cured in dense smoke in a building, then it cannot be marketed as smokehouse{d}.

It's as easy as using specific terminology to market their product. The fact that food producers don't, indicates to me that they're either stupid (and unaware of what words mean) or it's done maliciously (to mislead people).

0: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/smokehouse

[maccam912]

Would you be as accepting of I sold an "organic peaches" flavored product because it was the same flavor as organic peaches?

[A_D_E_P_T]

If you didn't use the word organic, sure. In food, the word "organic" has a specific legal meaning:

> "Any product labeled as organic on the product description or packaging must be USDA certified"

A synthetic peach flavoring would almost certainly be unable to attain this sort of certification.

But calling a peach-flavored product "peach" is as old as the hills, and of course I'm okay with it.