springcolor said:@AntMan01 Thought you might be interested in this thread.
Thank you Julia, yes indeed I'm interested in this thread.
Personally I don't like the practice of dredging up existing cultivars and rebranding under a trademark name, it's a bottom feeding practice. I realize it's legal, but an unfortunate practice at best. It unnecessarily adds complexity and confusion, each plant then has two names, a real cultivar name + a new TM name. I've seen plant labels that carry both names: original cultivar name (usually with syntax like "cv. CultivarName") + TM name, in other cases like Chick Charms, most of the marketing appears not to include cultivar name, obscuring the fact these are merely recycled cultivars with jazzed up names slapped on them (they also have jazzed up prices).
Two retail online stores have these (that I know of), one is "gardencrossings"-dot-"com" (you can look it up, since I just joined this forum today, I'm not yet permitted to add URLs in posts). On that site, you'd think these are all new hybrids. I recognized some of them as existing varieties, and because of Sempervivum Database here, was able to verify 12 of the Chick Charms and discover their true identity.
There is another online store named "greatgardenplants"-dot-"com" that carries some of them (you can google it, then do in-store search for sempervivum), but they err on the side of real cultivar names (yay) and give secondary attention to Chick Charm trademark name. On that site I found a reference that confirmed my suspicion that Chick Charm Key Lime Kiss is in fact a semp species, S. globiferum ssp. allionii. How the heck can one trademark a species??? That shouldn't be possible.
I would hope that all living hybridizers have been asked permission to have they're creation used for some else's business.
