"It’s simply unfathomable to me that this trademark can stand as legally binding. The fact that it’s held by a European company is just insulting on top of that."
Unnecessary acrimonious statement. Is it because it is a non-US company, or specifically a European company?
I believe French people could feel similarly insulted by California "champagne"⁰.
The insult is not that the company is specifically European but that it is non-US. I think the analogy you describe would be more apt if a Californian company were attempting to prevent French people from using the term champagne to describe real champagne from Champagne.
I don't think these two things can really be equated when you give them an honest look.
In one instance you are preventing others from profiting off their own culture. In the other you are piggybacking off of and profiting from another cultures success.
Both may be wrong but they are separate issues. Conflating them seems like a form of whataboutism.
The claim that champagne refers to bubbling wines in general and cannot be owned, is (not perfectly, but quite) the opposite of the idea that a general and public concept (route 66) is ownable by an entity.
Unnecessary acrimonious statement. Is it because it is a non-US company, or specifically a European company?
I believe French people could feel similarly insulted by California "champagne"⁰.
0: http://www.chapmanlawreview.com/archives/1256
* * *
EDIT:
Thanks for the replies. I agree California champagne is a poorly chosen example.
I understand the outrage about a Dutch company claiming ownership of the image of Route 66, but it just feels like "insulting" is too strong a word.