I do it sometimes. In my case, they’re particularly tasty, and sometimes even tasteful.
Definitely not tasteful, not tasty — not even edible, if “kosher” means anything (which judges refuse to admit it does).
And why do I have to eat my words? The case involves the unauthorized use of the Kof-K* kosher symbol (a certification mark) by a dirty-movie maker. He put the mark on the cover of his ethnically-oriented dirty movie. “Perhaps a tad sacrilegious, thought Mr. Cohen [oy — ed.], the owner of [the dirty-movie company], but nothing an observant Jew would confuse with permission from a rabbi to view pornographic material,” says the Times. Sounds like pretty good trademark infringement reasoning: No LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION, no infringement!
Rack one up for trademark dilution, at least where the argument comes from tarnishment — one of the two kinds of dilution, the other being blurring. I think that’s a pretty good use of trademark law. So what do you say I paint this corner here ju-u-u-st so… I’m now only against trademark dilution based on blurring. Dilution based on tarnishment — which is rarely used, in my experience, in simple trademark abuse by Big IP — is OK.
*CORRECTED AND DIGESTED: Every kosher konsumer I know calls this symbol the khof-K, not the Kof-K, because a khof (the kh is pronounced like the ch in “loch,” the Scottish word for “lake” — what can I tell you, it’s not an English sound! But loch is kind of an English word, whereas our Chanuka — pronounced khanuka — in English, just becomes Hanukkah!) is what a kof is born as until you put a dot in it. By the Kof-K’s lights a miniature “K” is a dot, when you use it like dot. Trademark implications of this factoid? Probably none.