A food truck selling crepes made with Black Thunder chocolate bars became a hot topic on 5channel after a customer pointed out it was using the candy’s actual package image and product name on its sign and menu description — raising possible copyright and trademark issues. The thread’s central debate: why single out this case when shops that put Pocky sticks on parfaits, or karaoke bars that serve Pocky, never get called out for it? Eventually someone noted that Pocky is protected by a 3D (shape) trademark, which makes using its name less of a legal problem, whereas Black Thunder is protected by an ordinary word trademark — meaning using its name or logo without permission could actually be an issue. From there, the discussion broadened into a debate over how trademark law actually works.
What people said
5AnonymousOct 8, 2026 17:04
Lol, calling it out like 'Yahiko' — dunno the details but gotta say something anyway (5ch slang for someone commenting confidently despite not really understanding the subject)
6AnonymousOct 8, 2026 17:05
Thought 'eh, just the product photo is maybe fine…' but the logo? Nah, that's a no-go lol
9AnonymousOct 8, 2026 17:06
Plenty of places put Pocky on parfaits though — that's never been an issue
19AnonymousOct 8, 2026 17:11
Re: #9 That kind of thing isn't a problem
98AnonymousOct 8, 2026 17:53
Re: #9 If the menu item were literally named 'Glico Pocky Parfait,' that'd be out though
11AnonymousOct 8, 2026 17:07
There's gotta be a trademark on it — using the product name like that is obviously asking for trouble
21AnonymousOct 8, 2026 17:11
They could've just written 'with chocolate cookie chips' or something — why'd they go and use the actual product name and package image?
63AnonymousOct 8, 2026 17:31
Re: #21 Well yeah, 'has Black Thunder in it' probably grabs more attention than just 'has chocolate chips in it'
29AnonymousOct 8, 2026 17:15
Just dumping in a store-bought product — cheap way to do it
33AnonymousOct 8, 2026 17:18
Re: #29 Oh? So you think they're making their own sugar and flour from scratch or something?
46AnonymousOct 8, 2026 17:22
Karaoke places serving Pocky is fine, so this should be fine too, no?
48AnonymousOct 8, 2026 17:24
Re: #46 If you're gonna use it, just get permission — simple as that
51AnonymousOct 8, 2026 17:25
Re: #48 I doubt concept cafes are getting permission for every snack on their food menu — it's probably more of a gray area leaning toward 'fine'
64AnonymousOct 8, 2026 17:31
Re: #51 Looked it up — turns out Pocky's registered as a 3D (shape) trademark, not a name trademark, so putting the name on a menu is apparently fine. Had no idea
59AnonymousOct 8, 2026 17:29
Makes you wonder why people assumed it was fine in the first place
62AnonymousOct 8, 2026 17:31
Re: #59 The logo on the sign is sketchy, but taken that broadly, Oreos on top of parfaits, Pocky at karaoke, snacks served as otoshi (the obligatory starter dish) at izakayas — all of that would be out too. So it leans more toward 'fine'
68AnonymousOct 8, 2026 17:33
Re: #64 Huh, interesting. So what about Black Thunder then?
69AnonymousOct 8, 2026 17:35
Re: #68 Look it up and you'll see — it's a regular word trademark, so even just writing 'contains Black Thunder' is out
70AnonymousOct 8, 2026 17:35
Apparently a 'crepe with Black Thunder in it' would be fine, but 'Black Thunder Crepe' is the sketchy part. And this case is out anyway because they used Black Thunder's actual package design in the product description
73AnonymousOct 8, 2026 17:36
Re: #70 Pretty sure even 'with ~ in it' isn't allowed
74AnonymousOct 8, 2026 17:36
It's not really about 'using the name' — it actually does have Black Thunder in it, right? Feels more like they're just selling Black Thunder under the name Black Thunder
80AnonymousOct 8, 2026 17:38
Re: #74 You can't just sell Black Thunder under the name 'Black Thunder' without permission though
78AnonymousOct 8, 2026 17:37
Realistically it probably helps sales, so I'd bet a lot of manufacturers just quietly let this slide. Though I guess there's no end to it if you start with stuff like Baby Star ramen-snack monja
82AnonymousOct 8, 2026 17:38
Re: #78 True, they are basically wholesaling the snack for them after all
85AnonymousOct 8, 2026 17:43
Re: #80 So then what name are they even supposed to sell it under? Or does that mean Black Thunder can't be used in anything at all without the maker's permission?
90AnonymousOct 8, 2026 17:43
Re: #85 Just get permission, or don't put the name on it — simple
Background and Key Points of the Debate
Trademarks come in different forms — a “word mark,” which protects the text itself, and a “3D (shape) mark,” which protects a container or shape. The Pocky example cited in the thread is closer to a 3D shape trademark, so uses that merely mimic the shape tend not to cause problems. Candies whose names are registered as word marks are a different story, though. The point raised in the thread — that putting a product’s actual name or package image on a sign or menu is likely to be seen as implying an unauthorized brand partnership — is a fair one. That said, Yuraku, the maker of Black Thunder, hasn’t issued any official statement on this particular case, and the customer’s comments were just one person’s personal take. Using a ready-made candy or snack as-is in a food product is extremely common in the restaurant industry, and the thread doesn’t really surface where the line actually gets drawn on what’s acceptable — that murkier background is easy to miss in the back-and-forth.
Leave a Reply