This proposal is that when a Food/Drink (and equivalent) producer substantially changes their ingredients for a product, their trademark protection should be put at risk.
We have increasingly seen highlights of “I used to eat BRAND X as a kid, and now look at the ingredients then vs now” where the original recipe was much simpler/healthier and the current list is a who’s of who what not to eat. Yet, consumers don’t know that and think “it was good enough for me then…” etc.
This proposal would be to marry risking a registered Trademark for Food /Drink products if they substantially change the ingredient list to the detriment of the consumer. Of course there is interpretation there, but other policies should be able to provide an opinion of “better” ingredient wise.
You should know that when you buy BRAND X, you are getting substantially the same product. Assuming other policies will be in place to encourage removal of harmful ingredients in exchange for healthier ones.
This is a concept to “backstop” them from sliding backward in the future. Meaning, you are allowed to make it healthier, but not less healthy and maintain your trademark protection.
A major portion of value to shareholders it the brand they hold and enjoy government protection for the exclusive use of. The USPTO should notify the loss of registered trademark protection if this happens.
This affords a solution that it more in the spirit of a free market with government protection rather then straight out government mandates of “must do”.
Imagine the hammer wielded if you say “Sorry, GLOBAL FOOD/DRINK BRAND your trademark is not longer protected under US law since you replaced with/added Ingredient X that was not in your product before”.
Their market would be encroached by competition and likely their business impacted.
See EU example of Burger King using Big Mac when McDonalds lost trademark. It can be impactful.