Pimp My Snack

The original name of Pimp That Snack

Pimp My Snack

Pimp My Snack went online in early April 2006: a place to rebuild a snack everyone recognises at a ridiculous scale, and photograph every step.

On 17 May 2006 a letter arrived from lawyers for Viacom International Inc., saying the name breached their trade mark applications for “Pimp My” and “Pimp My Ride”. On 3 June 2006 the site became Pimp That Snack. The letters stayed here.

Read the letters The snacks are here

We leave it here for posterity and as an inspiration to those who may find themselves bullied by humourless, soulless multinationals on spurious grounds. Don’t let yourself be intimidated.

Besides, we’ve long since outlasted any crappy TV-shows that happen to share a few words of common language.

From this page’s 2021 update, for Pimp That Snack’s 15th anniversary. For more, see Pimp That Snack on Wikipedia.

What happened

The short version, in order. The letters themselves are further down.

  1. Pimp My Snack goes online. It started as a tampered-with KitKat Chunky on a forum, and somebody suggested it should be a website.

  2. A letter arrives from legal representatives of Viacom International Inc. It says “Pimp My Snack” breaches their trade mark application E4279493, covering “Pimp My”, and E3992724, for “Pimp My Ride”.

  3. I reply. “Pimp” is everyday slang, the site has nothing to do with a programme about cars, and I offer to add a notice saying so.

  4. I apply to the UK Patent Office to register “Pimp That Snack”.

  5. Pimp My Snack changes its name to Pimp That Snack. This page says plainly that the change is no admission of liability.

  6. Viacom’s lawyers write again. They take the new name to mean I accept their argument. I reply on 1 July.

  7. The Patent Office objects. It says “Pimp That Snack” isn’t distinctive enough to register.

  8. Press The Guardian reports the dispute. MTV tells the paper it owns trade mark rights in “Pimp My” and “Pimp My Ride”.

  9. I reply to the office, and ask whether the objection is its own or somebody else’s.

  10. The office writes again, now arguing about “Pimp My Snack”. I reply on 22 November.

  11. A third letter from the office, after two months of waiting. It still isn’t persuaded, and it points towards a hearing.

  12. The final update here: after the hearing, “the opposition was overcome and the trademark was registered successfully”.

What the rename meant

The name changed so the site could carry on. The snacks were the point, and a legal fight over two ordinary words would have sunk the whole thing. This page said so at the time:

While we are changing the name, this should not be taken as an admission of liability, trademark breach, or otherwise an acknowledgement of Viacom’s argument. Merely that, in order to run our Snack Pimping website unimpeded, and to explore and advance new ideas, we need to do so without the threat of legal action hanging over us.

After all, this site is just for fun, and we strongly believe that it is the concept, simplistic design and enthusiasm of thousands of fans that have helped us become popular, and not the conjunction of a few common words in our name.

This page, 2006.

Viacom’s lawyers still read the change as an acceptance of their client’s rights, in the letter that arrived on 29 June 2006. I answered on 1 July. Both letters are below.

The Pimp That Snack trade mark

With a new name chosen, I wanted it protected, so nobody could threaten the site over its name again. In May 2006 I applied to register “Pimp That Snack” at the UK Patent Office, now the Intellectual Property Office.

It is a phrase that came from this website and nowhere else. The Patent Office didn’t agree. Its letter of 30 August 2006 said the mark wasn’t distinctive enough, and, as this page reported at the time, it came with printouts from the web of people using “Pimp My”, words the application doesn’t contain.

I replied on 30 October 2006. The office wrote back on 9 November, now arguing about “Pimp My Snack”. The update I posted the next day asked:

1) If ‘Pimp My’ is so generic, why have Viacom so recently been allowed to register this term?

2) Why on earth are the Patent Office making arguments to us about the ‘trademarkability’ of the phrase ‘Pimp My Snack’ when we have made it more than clear we are registering the trademark ‘Pimp THAT Snack’ which is distinctive in its own right?

It appears, at least to me, that the ‘objection’ against our trademark has come from someone very concerned about the use of ‘Pimp My Snack’ and has cited arguments that include ‘Pimp My Ride’. I wonder who this could have possibly come from? Would anyone like to guess?

This page, 10 November 2006.

I replied again on 22 November 2006. The office’s third letter, dated 15 January 2007, came after two months of waiting. The update posted here on 24 January 2007 said:

This letter, which still fails to properly address any of my arguments made, also tells me that an objection was indeed raised by an unspecified party.

It looks as though I’m destined to attend a hearing to fight for the right to my trademark.

This page, 24 January 2007.

Two months later came the last word on it:

After attending a hearing, the opposition was overcome and the trademark was registered successfully.

This page, final update, March 2007.

The letters

Every letter, as published on this page in 2006 and 2007. Pages that first went up as scanned images are now gathered into one PDF per letter.

Letter · 17 May 2006

From Viacom’s lawyers

Three pages. Trade mark applications E4279493 and E3992724, and the claim that “Pimp My Snack” calls “Pimp My Ride” to mind.

Read the PDF: Viacom’s lawyers, 17 May 2006

Reply · 23 May 2006

My first reply

Two pages. “Pimp” is everyday slang, the site has nothing to do with the programme, and I offer a notice saying so.

Read the PDF: my reply, 23 May 2006

Reply · 1 July 2006

My second reply

Two pages. It disputes that the marks are distinctive, and keeps open the option of challenging them.

Read the PDF: my reply, 1 July 2006

Reported at the time

On 4 September 2006 The Guardian reported that MTV had sought to register its programme’s title and the phrase “Pimp my…”, and had sent warning letters to Pimp My Snack. It quoted the first letter’s claim that the name was “intended to call the mark Pimp My Ride to the mind of the reader”. A solicitor specialising in copyright told the paper that nobody would confuse Pimp My Snack with the programme.

MTV told the paper it owned trade mark rights in “Pimp My” and “Pimp My Ride”, and that the name Pimp My Snack violated them.

Pimp That Snack on Wikipedia has the short public history. The About page has the rest: the KitKat, The F-Word, and what became of the archive.

The snacks moved. The name stayed here.

Every pimp is on Pimp That Snack, with the photographs and write-ups at their own addresses. Submissions closed years ago. This domain keeps the record of the name.

477 pimps · 449 pimpers · 2006–2015

Start with the best of it

Questions people ask

What was Pimp My Snack?

The original name of Pimp That Snack. It went online in early April 2006 and became Pimp That Snack on 3 June 2006. People rebuilt familiar snacks at a ridiculous scale and photographed every step.

Why did the name change?

In a letter received on 17 May 2006, lawyers for Viacom International Inc. said the name breached trade mark applications for “Pimp My” and “Pimp My Ride”. Changing it was the way to keep the site running without the threat of legal action.

Did the site accept Viacom’s argument?

No. This page said at the time that the change was not an admission of liability, trade mark breach or acknowledgement of Viacom’s argument. Viacom’s lawyers still read it as acceptance, in the letter that arrived on 29 June 2006.

Was Pimp That Snack registered as a trade mark?

The application went to the UK Patent Office in May 2006, and the office objected that the mark wasn’t distinctive enough. According to this page’s final update, in March 2007, the objection was overcome at a hearing and the trade mark was registered.