William Lozito at Name Wire writes about a counterfeiting double-cross, or is it triple-cross or something more?, that is so byzantine in its fruity dimensions that only the wretched Zionist Entity could have hatched it. So, what happens when Jew oranges infiltrate the Islamic Republic of Iran’s citrus bins, formerly believed impregnable against the Elders of Zion and their nefarious schemes?:
Fruity Jew
[T]he seemingly innocent appearance of “Jaffa Sweetie Israel-PO” oranges was enough to make one Iranian official declare that “rogue elements” were trying to “disgrace the ruling government.”
As it turns out, those “rogue elements” were unscrupulous Chinese middlemen, who illegally used the “Jaffa Sweetie” brand name on their counterfeit fruit.
The problem was exacerbated by the fact that “President Ahmadinejad inadvertently distributed the fruit during a two day goodwill visit to the town of Salam in southern Iran.”
The Chinese and Iranian investigators have counter-claimed that they actually bought the real thing in Israel and simply forgot to remove the stickers before sending them on to Iran. One then must wonder if it is the brand naming of the oranges or the oranges themselves that is the actual problem?
Jujyfruits
The Iranians claim they want no part of “Zionist” oranges, but if the Chinese investigators are correct, then they have been eating them via China, branded as Jaffa or something else, for some time.
Well this much is clear: Of all the wicked Jews controlling the world these days, it’s the Chinese ones who are the worst, you know?
Hat tip to Pamela Chestek, a known insidious fruit-handler herself.
Originally posted 2013-09-18 11:43:42. Republished by Blog Post Promoter
2 Replies to “Orange you glad you’re such mullahs?”
All in all this is a wonderful “wait a minute” moment regarding the entire “brand” concept in today’s age. We tend to run off protecting things without continually questioning the foundational elements (like we did in the “use” + “in commerce” standing requirement for so long).
Used to be the suppliers actually produced or at least had a hand in producing the branded product. Today it seems to be a just-in-time acquisition process with a “quality” requirement. So, the blog begs the questions, what was the actual confusion – that they were “Jaffa” brand oranges or that they were actually oranges. What is abundantly clear is the fact that the Chinese (apparent owner of the “brand”) neither grew them nor had much control over their cultivation or delivery to market.
All in all this is a wonderful “wait a minute” moment regarding the entire “brand” concept in today’s age. We tend to run off protecting things without continually questioning the foundational elements (like we did in the “use” + “in commerce” standing requirement for so long).
Used to be the suppliers actually produced or at least had a hand in producing the branded product. Today it seems to be a just-in-time acquisition process with a “quality” requirement. So, the blog begs the questions, what was the actual confusion – that they were “Jaffa” brand oranges or that they were actually oranges. What is abundantly clear is the fact that the Chinese (apparent owner of the “brand”) neither grew them nor had much control over their cultivation or delivery to market.