Talk:Umami Burger

Dubious

Out of professional curiosity, I searched the USPTO trade marks register for the mark "UMAMI", and none of them were registered to Adam Fleischman as the lead currently claims. Unless there is some nuance in the source which was missed by the editor inserting the claim, it seems like the claim is wrong, or at least inaccurate. (I was curious as to what goods and services the mark might be registered for, and on what grounds - an argument could be made that "umami" is sufficiently well known as to be a descriptive word for food with an umami taste, which one would expect burgers to have.)--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I added The New Yorker as a source, in addition to the existing Los Angeles Times reference. LAT does say the trademark's "availability might have been due to the fact that the trademark office thought 'umami' was a brand and didn't realize it's considered the fifth taste, after sweet, sour, bitter and salty." Could the trademark be registered to the restaurant group?—Bagumba (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, LAT says the trademark was "purchased from a restaurant on Long Island called Umami Café." A query at USTO verifies that Umami Cafe trademarks were transferred to Umami Burger. I'm not a trademark expert to challenge the claim made in LAT that it also includes protection for umami.—Bagumba (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I also see that that's what the articles say, but the fact remains that there is no mark record for "umami" which is owned by Adam Fleischman (I also ran a proprietorship search to identify any marks owned by Fleischman, and none was found). Instead, there are a dozen "umami" marks which are registered to other people in respect of a variety of goods and services. I considered the possibility that the articles are talking about an unregistered trade mark, which would explain why it wouldn't show on the reigster, but this possibility is contradicted by the reference to "availability" and trade mark office ignorance, which would only be relevant for a registered mark. So the statement is dubious in the sense that it contradicts the official trade mark register, and it is misleading in the sense that there are other people on the register who own "umami" marks, so Fleischman cannot be described as owning the "umami" mark, as there is no "the" "umami" mark.

Finally, the LAT claim is not that the trade mark "Uammi Burger" confers protection for "Umami" (which is probably not true), but that the trade mark "Umami" was transferred to Fleischman by Umami Cafe. Which is not borne out by the records. (And those marks are held by Umami Burger Licensing USA. LLC, not by Fleischman.)

I know Wikipedia is meant to be a tertiary source and reflect what is reported in secondary source, but that does not mean statements in secondary sources should be reported as fact when we know fairly definitively that they are inaccurate or misleading. I am not suggesting that we make assertions based on USPTO records alone, since that would be borderline original research. My suggestion is to either qualiy the statement as "Umami Burger claims..." or "some media reports claim...", or to delete the claim completely. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we need to be accurate according to secondary sources, while being wary of original research. I think the main concern is whether exclusive rights to the word to umami was obtained. I did find that Umami Cafe sued Umami Burger in early 2011. My guess (still not an expert) is that there are some rights (even if not exclusive) to the word in the trademark, and Umami Burger just bought the trademark outright, perhaps as a settlement. Since none of the sources prefaced that it was Fleishman that made the claim about the trademark of the work, I think we need to assume that the sources either corroborated the claims or at least did not find it dubious. Still, I think we can soften the wording so that WP doesnt imply that exclusive trademark to the word exists, and explain in a footnote per WP:Inaccuracy the other "Umami" trademarks at USPTO. I've made these changes.—Bagumba (talk) 20:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes - I'm happy with the new version. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

puzzling sentence in lede

"Their burgers have a umami flavor, which is outside of the traditionally accepted tastes of salty, sweet, bitter, and sour."
Umami is, simply put, "savory" (glutamate) flavor. I doubt there are (meat) burgers that don't have that flavor... unless Umami burgers have a particuarly intense glutamate flavor... -- megA (talk) 04:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, it's cited to multiple sources.—Bagumba (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but it's embarassingly redundant. "Our meat tastes like meat." -- megA (talk) 02:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

unencyclopedic

This article reads like something you'd find on the back of an Umami Burger's takeout bag.

some examples of what I feel are unencyclopedic:

• from the first paragraph of the History section -
  • ...—a cherished indulgence of his—...
  • ...Fleischman pondered over the reason behind the popularity of burger and pizza restaurants in America...
  • ...It was then that Fleischman envisioned the financial potential of expanding on the basic burger and its umami properties....
• from the Menu section -
  • ...Their tomatoes are slow-baked overnight with a soy-based sauce, enhancing its umami properties....
  • ...that meet Fleischman's desire for a basic supermarket-style bun that also feels artisanal...
  • ...to offer rotating flavors of their gourmet, all-natural ice cream...

it's more an ad than anything Smortypi (talk) 07:07, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Menu

WP:PRODUCT: If the products and services are not notable enough for their own article, the discussion of them should be trimmed and summarized into a shorter format, or even cut entirely. If the menu is not removed, it probably should be shorter. Their burgers and the bar appear to be notable features. The tone of the existing section appears overly promotional, though. —PaleoNeonate – 18:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

COI tag (October 2023)

reverting unexplained COI tag removal by an IP editor with a pattern of promotional puffery addition. revert Special:Diff/1181103897 Graywalls (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

@Graywalls: The tag was previously {{Advert}}. For {{COI}}, the documentation seems to suggest that the editor(s) should be identified, or that the strong suspicion is explained. Thanks. —Bagumba (talk) 01:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

@Bagumba:, I meant to put back in advert. I fixed the tag mix up and re-upped the appropriate tags with proper edit summary. Graywalls (talk) 01:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC)