Kanye recently changed the name of his new song “Theraflu” to the way less catchy “Way Too Cold.”

Despite rumors that Theraflu’s parent company, Novartis, cracked the mighty legal whip, Kanye claims it was just a “creative decision.” Novartis did disclaim any endorsement or approval of Yeezy’s use of “Theraflu” shortly after the song’s release, but the drug company now insists that it did not force Kanye to change the song title. In a statement to TMZ.com, Theraflu quipped, “Novartis Consumer Health did not ask that the name be changed — that request would be way too cold.”

Put down that $40 “Kobe” burger. Slap those “Kobe” sliders out of your fellow bar patron’s hands. Scratch out the “Kobe” beef steak off that fancy Japanese restaurant menu with a Sharpie–and feel completely justified in doing so. According to this Forbes.com article, “Food’s Biggest Scam: The Great Kobe Beef Lie,” Americans have been duped for years into buying “Kobe” beef, which comes with a hefty price tag, when real Japanese Kobe beef cannot actually be legally imported into the United States.

“Under Japanese law,” the article states, “Kobe beef can only came from Hyogo prefecture (of which Kobe is the capital city) where no slaughterhouses were approved for export by the USDA.” So unless restaurants have Kobe “mules” who smuggle cuts of pricey beef straight from Hyogo prefecture in their luggage (ew), you’ve probably spent all of that extra money on what Forbes.com’s Larry Olmsted calls “Faux-be Beef”–imitations from the Midwest, Great Plains, South America, or Australia.

Further, in order to be “real” Kobe, the meat must come from a lineage of Tajima-gyu breed cattle, born in Hyogo prefecture and raised on local grasses and water throughout its lifetime. Then, it must be processed in a Hyogo slaughterhouse, and, after all of the above, the beef must then pass a strict government grading exam.

“Hmm,” you may be thinking. “That sounds like an awful lot of expensive requirements for my local dive bar/bistro/brunch spot/hole-in-the-wall burger joint to follow. So how come the menu says I’m ordering Kobe sliders?”

The answer is simple–and unfortunate for both the producers of genuine Kobe beef and unknowing consumers. Although in Japan, “Kobe Beef,” “Kobe Meat,” and “Kobe Cattle” are trademarked, these Japanese trademarks are not recognized or protected in the United States; that is, use of “Kobe” is unregulated. So, when that haughty waiter with the fancy mustache tries to talk you into coughing up a Benny to feast on Kobe beef that has supposedly been fed only the finest beer and massaged by only the most attractive women in all of Japan, feel free to laugh and pass on that wanna-be “Faux-be” beef.

The Trayvon Martin killing has spurred significant, world-wide controversy and rage.  As expected to be the case with anything that receives such astounding publicity, people are trying to profit off it.  Similar to the absurd T-shirts created in response to the “Twilight” hysteria, “Team Edward” and “Team Jacob,”  many merchandisers are creating various objects bearing phrases containing Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman’s names.

Martin’s mother has applied for trademarks on the phrases, “I am Trayvon” and “Justice for Trayvon.”  Shortly thereafter, a San Francisco business man, Lawrence Sekara, applied for a trademark on the phrase, “I believe you Zimmerman.”  Sekara’s trademark application states his intent to use the trademark on t-shirts, coffee mugs, and other merchandise.  Martin’s mother claims she has no intention to profit off the trademark, saying she has filed the trademark so that others will not be able to capitalize on her son’s death by creating merchandise.

Although it is unfortunate that many are able to capitalize off of this controversial killing, Martin’s mother’s trademark application contradicts trademark policy- namely consumer protection and quality investment.  Trademark is defined in terms of its source-identifying use.  If Mrs. Martin has openly stated that she does not intend to use the trademark, and is seeking protection to prevent others from using the “mark” (if the use of his name can even be a mark), should the PTO refuse giving her trademark protection?