Susan, if you've read the whole thread on this subject, you'll know where I stand on the issue, the most polite thing I can say about this practice of harvesting other people's work (and including harvesting regular species!) and slapping on one's own names, it's legal "bottom feeding", one of the most unfortunate trends in horticulture.
I don't know if I believe this: "Chris works within the law and pays legitimate royalties to the right people for their cultivars". Most of cultivars are very old and some of the hybridizers are deceased. I believe it was mentioned in this discussion of one European breeder not very happy about the use of his/her cultivar without permission. Two of the CC trademarked semps are straight up species, just think about how many plant species exist on this earth, and it's now fair game legally to slap on one's own made up trademark name on any living plant. Subsequently the plants end up having two names associated with it, the true latin binomial or cultivar name, then a new made-up trademark name, makes for a confusing mixed up nomenclature mess. It might all be legal, but it's just plain bad practice.
For me the unsavoriness of the trade mark rebranding practice, in the case of Chick Charms, all marketing of the CC product line gives the 100% impression 100% that they're his creations, and he unabashedly accepts all praise for his wondrous new varieties (and yes, I'm aware of 'Gold Nugget' being the only CC currently that's truly his own). Chris rationalizes his approach saying he's popularizing semps for the mass market, and that audience would not understand the double-naming byproduct of trademark names, might be true, but I for one could never rebrand and take credit for other people's work, including breeders who are no longer living to protect their interests.
Still seeking the true cultivars name behind CC Berry Bomb, Cosmic Candy, Silver Suede.
