The spicy condiment industry in America is sizzling, and not just because of the heat levels in jars of chili oil. Recently, Momofuku, the culinary brand led by celebrity chef David Chang, is at the center of a legal and cultural controversy with its Momofuku Chili Crunch product.
Their attempt to trademark the phrase “Chili Crunch” has gotten a lot of negative feedback and has led to discussions about intellectual property rights, how businesses should act, and how to protect a brand while also allowing small businesses to compete fairly.
As an experienced law firm, at Am Badar & Am Badar, we have seen countless examples of how trademark disputes can shape industries. Sometimes, it can be solved with agreement. Read Trademark License Agreement: What to Know on our insights page for more details.
What Prompted Momofuku to File for the Trademark?
Now, let’s dive into the story. Let’s start with the controversial product first. Made from chili-based condiments, Momofuku Chili Crunch blends crunchy ingredients like sesame seeds and garlic with fiery oil.
Introduced in 2020, the item became well-known right away. Momofuku’s product was marketed to highlight its crispy texture, unlike the more general chili crisp category, which gets ideas from Chinese cooking customs.
Specifically, the name Momofuku Chili Crunch was selected intentionally to set it apart from other well-known chili crisps like Lao Gan Ma.
But Momofuku’s decision to trademark the name evolved into a legal tactic when the company bought the rights to “Chile Crunch” (spelled with an “e”) from Chile Colonial, a tiny Colorado-based firm.
Having this trademark, Momofuku started the process of registering “Chili Crunch” (written with a “i”) with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and issued cease-and-desist letters to other businesses using the word.
The letters claimed that Momofuku owned rights to both “Chile Crunch” and “Chili Crunch” and demanded that competitors stop using these names.
The company claims that trademarking Momofuku Chili Crunch was essential to guard their creation from being replicated by bigger corporations.
The CEO of Momofuku, Marguerite Mariscal, clarified that neglect to defend the trademark can lead to the loss of exclusive rights, therefore endangering their brand identity. Still, this action would shortly cause an unanticipated backlash. Here are the responses they got:
The Response from Other Companies and the Public Outcry
Initially, particularly for smaller businesses that had been using the name long before Momofuku unveiled their product, the cease-and-desist letters from Momofuku were greeted with frustration and disbelief.
Critics even accused Momofuku of acting as a “trademark bully”—a term used to describe large companies that aggressively enforce intellectual property rights to stifle competition from smaller businesses.
The reaction was particularly noticeable in the Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) community, as many of the targeted companies were started by AAPI entrepreneurs.
Founder of Fly By Jing, a well-known Sichuan chili sauce brand, Jing Gao also expressed disappointment, calling this David Chang Chili Crunch’s trademark effort ridiculous and harmful to fair competition.
The debate swiftly went viral on social media as consumers attacked the effort to claim ownership over what many saw as a generic word. For many, the scenario represented how power relations in the food industry may stifle more minor players.
The Outcome and What’s Next for Momofuku
As the criticism mounted, David Chang and his team recognized the need for damage control for this Momofuku Chili Crunch controversy.
On April 12, Chang publicly apologized on his podcast, The Dave Chang Show, stating, “I spent the greater part of my adult life trying to bring light to Asian food… I understand why people are upset, and I’m truly sorry.”
He then announced that Momofuku would no longer enforce the “Chili Crunch” trademark and would allow the term to become generic, essentially relinquishing ownership.
How Momofuku Responded to the Backlash?
Chang’s apology was an attempt to rebuild trust, particularly within the AAPI community. He clarified that the Momofuku Chili Crunch trademark was decided upon with an eye toward product protection rather than restriction of competition.
He did admit, however, that the strategy had unanticipated results, separating Momofuku from the smaller businesses it meant to support.
Momofuku’s plan moving forward is to cease enforcing the trademark entirely, even if it risks losing exclusive rights to the name. Mariscal noted that this decision was a way to “take the power away” from the term, ensuring that no single entity could claim ownership.
Although Momofuku’s decision was praised as a positive one, many critics asked them to do more to show the company’s dedication to fairness and inclusiveness.
What This Means for Momofuku’s Brand Moving Forward?
Of course, the controversy has affected Momofuku’s standing permanently. Although the company’s choice to back down was perceived as favorable, it also underlined the dangers of strict trademark enforcement in a sector sensitive to culture.
For a business that has built its reputation on honoring Asian food, the event acted as a reminder of the obligations accompanying such powerful influence.
Moving forward, Momofuku faces the challenge of regaining trust, not just with the AAPI community but also with smaller competitors and the broader food industry. This will probably call for openness, teamwork, and a renewed focus on ethical business practices.
As many others recommended, trademarking the whole name “Momofuku Chili Crunch” rather than trying for a generic phrase would have been a smarter and wiser approach.
Can Brands Trademark Common Food Names?
The main point of this whole controversy lies in a fundamental question: Should a company be able to trademark a term as seemingly generic as “Chili Crunch”?
As you may already be aware, trademark law serves to protect consumers and companies from misunderstanding in the marketplace. Generic or descriptive phrases (such as “chili” and “crunch”) are usually more difficult to trademark, nevertheless, unless they become unique from extensive use.
Momofuku said in this instance that “Chili Crunch” had become unique due to its economic success, while critics responded that the name is too broad and culturally rooted to belong to a single company.
As intellectual property experts, our team at Am Badar & Am Badar often advises clients on these nuanced issues. For instance, brands can explore alternatives, such as trademarking a full product name like “Momofuku Chili Crunch” rather than a generic phrase.
This approach balances brand protection with fairness, reducing the risk of public backlash. To learn more, visit our Trademark License Service or explore other IP-related services. Also, stay updated by checking our insights, or contact us for personalized assistance.
