The 2 Words That Set Off A Chicken Chain Lawsuit

It is no secret that fried chicken is a competitive market. The "Chicken Sandwich Wars" that kicked off in 2019 were one of the all-time great fast food feuds, putting all of us on social media in front row seats to watch these various chains duke it out for sandwich supremacy. In November of 2024, however, a different sort of competition began to unfold, and this time it took place in the courtroom. The two-word phrase that started this inter-chain legal battle is one that any chicken connoisseur will know well: "original recipe."

Based on that phrase alone, most of you can probably immediately identify the plaintiff in this case. Indeed, the party that filed this trademark infringement complaint is the leviathan of the fried chicken world, the KFC Corporation. In the defendant's corner is Church's Chicken, a much smaller, though still sizable, chain sporting around 1,500 restaurants spread across 25 countries — as compared to KFC's more than 30,000 stores across 150 countries.

The nature of the complaint states that KFC is one of the best-known and most successful fried chicken brands in the world, and that its signature "Original Recipe" style of fried chicken — a trademarked title — has been a flagship product that the brand has poured extensive money and effort into promoting over many years. By using the same title for its own chicken, KFC alleges that Church's not only violated its trademark, but also irreparably damaged the fame and goodwill KFC built for its "Original Recipe" over half a century.

Clearly, KFC felt that it had legal grounds for this action, and it would appear that Church's did not wish to contest the matter. KFC requested an unspecified quantity of monetary damages from the court as well as an injunction that would block Church's from using the phrase in question. The case was amicably resolved outside of court with KFC withdrawing the case in December of 2024, though the specifics of the settlement, including any potential damages paid, were not publicly released.

While the case was clearly decided without much of a fight, from the viewpoint of a layperson, it does seem somewhat questionable. The offending Church's advertisement stated simply, "Our Original Recipe is Back." It is certainly arguable that the two trademarked words are used here in a manner that accurately describes the state of affairs for the brand. Both of these brands have a long history, actually coming into existence in the same year, back in 1952. As such, it would make perfect sense for Church's to be able to advertise a return to the brand's original recipe from over 70 years earlier. The rub, of course, is that KFC's batter, with its blend of 11 herbs and spices, was trademarked as its "Original Recipe" back in 1984.

Much was made of this fried chicken fiasco, but in the end it disappeared without too much noise. KFC was able to hang onto its phrasing as somehow the only brand that has an original recipe for fried chicken. While it did not seize upon the opportunity, Church's would've had every right to capitalize on the moment with a public clap-back, such as promoting its signature "initial formula" fried chicken instead.