Duets Blog : Creativity and the Law: DuetsBlog

Recently, a new Verizon commercial caught my eye.  Perhaps you've seen it:

This immediately reminded me of a circa 1993 (has it really been that long?) De Beers commercial (seen here).  Apparently, this is one of at least two Verizon commercials intended to "spoof" some of the classic, well-known commercials from our past.  My immediate reaction, to these commercials was to start brainstorming all of the conceivable bases on which Verizon might be liable given the similarity of its commercials to clearly recognizable commercials from the past.  Under the right factual circumstances, I could see all sorts of claims for unfair competition, trademark infringement, copyright infringement, misappropriation, etc. (not saying those facts exist here).    

AdFreak, a blog which I just recently became aware, described these commercials as "parody."  However, I seriously question whether these commercials would be able to successfully meet the legal requirements for a parody fair use defense.  The fair use defense is a relatively difficult defense to establish, particularly where the "parody" is being used for commercial benefit.  

Moreover, parodies are generally understood by the law to be a criticism of something represented by the underlying material, not merely a clever transformative use.  Compare the above Verizon "spoof" to this, where the use is plainly intended to comment on De Beers alleged enabling of the "conflict diamond" trade.  Or compare it to this "vicious" (WARNING: GRAPHIC AND DISTURBING CONTENT) parody of "overwrought De Beers jewelry commercials."  Each of these uses is categorically different from Verizon's use here.  So, I hope Verizon had something else in its bag of tricks besides the "parody" argument before running these commercials.   

Ultimately, the moral is that its important to always recognize the danger in "borrowing" someone else's marketing concept or intellectual property, no matter how limited or transformative the use.  Additionally, its important to recognize the fair use defense is not always the best shield to protect yourself, particularly if you're involved in commercial advertising.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Putting aside, for now, the unsettled question of who currently owns the iPad trademark, and Dan's perspective on Apple's trademark clearance strategies, from last week, look at what our finely-tuned e-mail spam filter just snagged:

It is a similar story to my previous Free Dell XPS Laptop Spam Scam? blog post from last December. Here, however, the Apple, iPad, and the (possible) iPad configuration trademarks, are the newest form of brand bait for what appears to be an ongoing type of spam e-mail scam. They're fast. It only took about two weeks after Apple's announcement of the iPad for these folks to bait their electronic hook with the newest branding lure.

By the way, how is it that these folks can make the free offer before Apple's iPad tablet is even available to the public? As of today, Apple still has a notify me page, if you'd like to "be among the first to receive iPad." So, doesn't the present unavailability of the iPad add to the misleading nature of the above advertisement because it seeks "testers" for this "new" product?

What do you think, misleading advertising, fair use of Apple's intellectual property?

This story also appears related to the topic covered in my previous Is Wal-Mart Giving Away Free $1,000 Gift Cards? blog post too.

What do these unsolicited e-mail programs have in common? Well, besides the fact that they all appear to originate from Canada (for reasons unknown to me), they use well-known, if not famous brands to attract attention online and convince you to supply them with your e-mail address. Really, would anyone pay even an ounce of attention to any of these e-mail spam solicitations without the unauthorized use of these popular brand names and images?

In an apparent attempt to avoid misleading anyone and confusion, of course, as was the case with the Free Dell XPS offer and the Wal-Mart $1,000 Gift Card offer, the Apple iPad ad offers a purported disclaimer:

The advertisers in this email are not affiliated with any of the above brands.

This is a third party advertisement sent to you by the list owner. If you no longer wish to receive email from this advertiser, please write Reward Group 191 7 West 4th Avenue, Suite 279 Vancouver, B.C. VJ6-1M7 or visit our email removal site by click here.

If you do not wish to receive correspondence from the list manager you will need to follow the unsubscribe instructions provide by the list manager on how to remove you from their list.

Who are the advertisers? Who is the list owner? It says the advertisers are not affiliated with any of the brands, so does that mean the list owner is? Does this disclaimer do the job with claims relating to likelihood of confusion as to source, affiliation, sponsorship, and approval?

Even in the unlikely event it does, what about claims for initial interest confusion? Where is the disclaimer for that additional type of unlawful trademark confusion? And, since there is a reasonable claim of trademark fame for many of these brands, is it even possible to have a disclaimer that avoids a state or federal dilution claim concerning a famous mark?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Jacket maker Weatherproof Garment Company took advantage of a GQ-style photo of the President standing in front of the picturesque Great Wall of China.

The White House was not pleased.

Smack in the middle of Times Square in New York - one of the busiest and most-watched intersections on Earth - stood a larger-than-life billboard featuring President Obama, in a Weatherproof jacket, in front of the Great Wall of China.

Now wait. Don't we see the image of the President just about everywhere? Your local newspaper doesn't need White House permission to feature the Pres on page 1, do they?

Of course not. But that's different.

News organizations (even bloggers) can use the image or likeness of political figures - with a few exceptions - in editorial content. That can include all manner of news reports, commentary, and even political cartoons. It's a sort of "fair use" interpretation and falls into the freedom of speech / freedom of the press continuum.

Clearly, that's not what Weatherproof was doing.

The headline "A leader in style" is clever, yes (borrowing "style points" from the unarguably GQ-ish President), but could hardly be seen as political commentary. Whatever Weatherproof may have tried to claim, the company is hoping to sell jackets. Plain and simple.

At least, that's how the White House interpreted it.

Last week, White House counsel Kendall Burman and Weatherproof spokesman Allen Cohen had a "cordial conversation" in which Mr. Burman reminded Mr. Cohen that public figures have a right to protect their likeness for commercial purposes. Needless to say, Weatherproof agreed to take down the billboards at the earliest possible time.

That said, it will be two weeks before the logistics line up to make that happen. Two weeks of continued visibility. Two weeks of continued buzz. All told, it will turn out to be a pretty good return on advertising investment.

Methinks Weatherproof knew exactly what it was doing when it flirted with the edge of the law.

This is gorilla advertising of the first order.

Yes, two billboards in Times Square aren't the equivalent of stuffing flyers under windshield wipers at your local supermarket, but it's still pretty darned creative. With a modest investment, and a cheap license fee from the Associated Press for the photo of the President in China, Weatherproof was able to generate disproportionate attention for their little campaign.

I have to admit, I took a look-see at the Weatherproof website. I need a new coat, and the one in the ad looks pretty good. Frankly, I never would have considered it otherwise. We'll have to see what the ad does for sales on a larger scale, but my guess is the net-net will be positive.

But aren't there any risks in this type of strategy?

Yes, certainly.

The President may engender good feelings for many people, and many people may view him as a style/trend leader, but those warm fuzzies are not universal. Does the Weatherproof brouhaha actually dissuade right-leaning buyers from the brand?

Perhaps.

But my guess is that Weatherproof understands its buyer demographics pretty well.

Was the campaign risky?  Yes. But did it pay off? I think 'yes' as well.

—Jason Voiovich, Principal and Co-Founder of Ecra Creative Group and Author of the State of the Brand weekly column

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Same drill as yesterday. Another email spam scam? More trademark fair use abuse?

Is it just me, or is the branded email spam coming out of the virtual woodwork, or what?

It appears that spam email -- complete with fully branded solicitations -- is becoming more and more aggressive, both from legal and technology perspectives.

We have a pretty aggressive email spam filter, but this one, like the one I blogged about yesterday, slide right through our screen, just like butter.

From the legal and trademark perspective, don't these advertisers pay attention to the limitations of the nominative fair use defense?

With respect to the purported disclaimer, if you were to scroll all the way down to the bottom of your computer screen, before you hit the CLICK HERE icon, you'd find it is virtually identical to the one from yesterday, only the mailing address has changed:

The advertisers in this email are not affiliated with any of the above brands.

This is a third party advertisement sent to you by the list owner. If you no longer wish to receive email from this list owner, please write Gift Sponsors 7B-871 Victoria Street North, Suite #105, Kitchener, Ontario N2b 3S4 or visit our email removal site by click here.

If you do not wish to receive correspondence from the list manager you will need to follow the unsubscribe instructions provide by the list manager on how to remove you from their list.

Now, at least one website suggests that Wal-Mart is the one actually behind these kind of free gift card offers, here, but I find that really, really hard to believe.

What do you think? What do you know?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

What if you were told that if you agreed to "test" a Dell XPS laptop you could keep it, for free?

Would you expect the offer to be from Dell Computer?

After all, who else but the manufacturer would care to give a computer away for simply having you test it?

Would you at least expect the offer to be affiliated with, or authorized, or approved by Dell Computer?

What if the unsolicited email offer avoided your spam filter and looked something like this?

Would you click on the "CLICK HERE" icon as instructed, or would you scroll all the way down to the bottom of the page to see if you might be able to learn more before clicking?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

If you've been paying attention on the trademark litigation front, you may have heard that The North Face recently brought a lawsuit against a freshman at the University of Missouri, Jimmy Winkelman, who has been selling clothing under the name The South Butt.  Aside from the obvious trademark question of whether the consuming public is, as Jimmy's attorney stated, "insightful enough to know the difference between a face and a butt," there are a couple other issues (unrelated to each other) that piqued my curiosity. 

First, it appears that The North Face has included a claim for trademark dilution.  For the uninitiated, trademark dilution is a different claim which, unlike a general claim for infringement, does not require consumer confusion.  Rather, it requires the diminishing of a "famous" mark's ability to serve as an indicator of source through "tarnishing" or "blurring." A classic example of tarnishment is the case of Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc., where Victoria's Secret sued an individual, named Victor Moseley, who was operating an adult store under the name Victor's Little Secret.  The theory was that even if the consuming public would not be confused by Victor's Little Secret, it damaged Victoria's Secret because it essentially cheapened their trademark.  So too here.  Even if people can tell the difference between a face and a butt, the damage may still exist because The South Face will case people to associate The North Face with a butt.  Notably, successful claims for dilution are rare, frequently because the "famous mark" hurdle is difficult to clear and "blurring" and "tarnishing" are difficult concepts for a court to address.  To me, it's uncertain whether The North Face can meet the "famous" requirement and whether dilution could be shown.  I'd like to see how the dilution claim would play out, but I doubt we will get that chance.

Second, I can see this case turning into an absolute nightmare for The North Face from a public relations standpoint.  Apparently, little Jimmy is a college freshman who started The South Butt to help pay for school.  This has all the makings of a classic David versus Goliath story where the public perception will end up being that The North Face is just a giant greedy corporation that can't take a joke and wants to beat up on a little guy.  (The last I heard, The South Butt's revenue was hovering around $5000.)  While I'm not particularly knowledgeable about The North Face's target demographic, it seems like this wouldn't play well with a lot of them.  This brings us to a teaching point:  While diligence is important in protecting your brand, so is thoughtful contemplation about your enforcement actions.  It's important to weigh the risks of doing nothing (which can sometimes be very substantial), with the risks of engaging in very public litigation with a sympathetic adversary.  Here, I think The North Face could have taken a more thoughtful approach than suing a poor college freshman named Jimmy right in the midst of the holiday shopping season.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Earlier this week the Legal Satyricon and a number of newspapers in the Southeast reported on the University of Alabama’s loss of part of its trademark infringement suit against former licensee Daniel Moore, an artist who has created original paintings featuring the UA’s athletes for over 30 years. UA argued that it has protectable trademark rights in the unregistered trade dress of the UA football uniforms – namely the colors crimson and white; UA’s trademark rights in its registered marks for CRIMSON TIDE were not at issue. Mr. Moore argued the defenses of “artistic expression,” first amendment, and fair use.

As I’ve written previously, athletic licensing is a serious money-maker for universities, and Mr. Moore purportedly earns in the low millions for his art, so there is much for UA to gain by bringing Mr. Moore back into their licensing fold. But, a cursory review of the court’s opinion, which points to case after case wherein university athletic departments, athletic event organizers, and individual athletes have sued artists on trademark theories, shows that such suits are seldom successful. Putting aside the difficulty of proving strong rights in the trade dress of the colors crimson and white (I can think of one institution in particular that may claim arguably stronger rights in the color crimson) and the on-the-face-of-the-dispute lack of plausible likelihood of consumer confusion, the basic issue here is whether artists such as Mr. Moore are using purported trademark rights in a trademark sense – that is, to identify themselves as the source of the purported trademark rights.

As readers of this blog are aware, a trademark is any symbol, word, device, etc. used, or intended to be used, in commerce to identify and distinguish the goods of one manufacturer or seller from goods manufactured or sold by others, and to indicate the source of the goods. The doctrine of classic fair use, which allows third parties to use a mark when it does so in good faith, to describe its goods and services in a manner that is not as a trademark, recognizes that if purported trademark owners could limit the use of their marks too even non-source-identifying uses, our ability to refer to goods, services, and their sources would be severely limited for no justifiable purpose. As if the application of this doctrine to the facts of this case spoke for itself, the court spent no more than seven sentences finding that Mr. Moore’s use of the Crimson Tide’s colors was a fair one.

Notably, the court found in favor of Mr. Moore to the extent he depicts the Crimson Tide in his artwork and prints, but enjoined his use of those same images on merchandise, such as coffee mugs, t-shirts and the like. What makes the use of the red-and-white in paintings a fair use, but not mugs?  While the court did not parse out its reasons for these findings, it is likely because consumers are more likely to view such goods – as opposed to $25,000 original oil paintings – as affiliated with UA, which probably makes a tidy sum selling Crimson Tide merchandise to its fans.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A couple of weeks ago I posted an Accountemps billboard advertisement that prominently features what appears to be a 3M Post-it brand removable adhesive note, and I asked whether it constitutes fair use, and whether 3M's permission is necessary to run the advertisement, since 3M owns a federal trademark registration for the color "canary yellow" in connection with these notes.

As the comments to that post reveal, some recognize the billboard image as a 3M Post-it note, and believe permission should be required to run the ad, others were unaware that 3M has a trademark on the color canary yellow, others believe that yellow adhesive notes are generic, and several apparently believe that even if the billboard depicts a 3M canary yellow Post-it note, no permission should be required. In fact, several pointed out that yellow adhesive notes can be obtained from a variety of sources, raising the question of how close those shades of yellow are to 3M's trademarked canary yellow?

So, just for you, I collected six different pads of yellow-colored adhesive notes and fixed them to a dark green background for a little follow-up quiz. Can you identify any "canary yellow" and name the sources of the six different yellow adhesive notes shown below (answers below the jump)?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

It depends. “Gray market” goods are those goods that are sold outside of the brand owner’s authorized distribution channels. Although a trademark owner may consider them “bootleg,” “gray market” goods are actually legally acquired abroad and then imported into the United States without the trademark owner’s consent. These actions do not legally infringe the trademark under the Lanham Act unless the “gray goods” undermine the owner’s goodwill or leave the consumer in a state of “legal confusion.”   If the "gray market" goods are "materially different" from the trademark owner's goods, then courts have found "legal confusion." 

The Cabbage Patch Kids dolls were at the heart of a dispute in the case entitled, Original Appalachian Artworks v. Granada Electronics, 816 F.2d 68 (2d Cir. 1987). A Spanish importer/distributor sold Spanish Kids dolls in the United States.  The Second Circuit found that the Spanish-language birth certificates, adoption papers and instructions for the Spanish Kids dolls were “materially different” from those same English-language documents for the Cabbage Patch Kids dolls.  It was likely that the consumer would be confused. Accordingly, the Cabbage Patch Kids trademark owner obtained a permanent injunction prohibiting the Spanish importer/distributor from selling the Spanish Kids dolls in the United States.

With the increasing global nature of our economy, “gray market” infringement claims will likely increase in the years to come. Courts have found “material differences” in products based on labels, packaging, structural strength of parts, product composition and storage of material. If a product fails to contain English warning labels or English operator owners’ manuals, courts will likely find these to be “material differences” warranting protection. 

“Material differences” do not have to be physical. Services provided with product and warranties (or lack thereof) can be found to be a “material difference” from the trademark owner’s product. Further, a trademark owner’s superior internal quality control procedures can be a “material difference.” There are many ways that a trademark owner can assert that there is a “material difference” in its product so that it can obtain protection from “gray goods” being dumped into the United States to unfairly compete with the trademark owner’s products.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This billboard ad has appeared in various locations around the Twin Cities for some time now. 

Each time I saw it, I wondered whether it would be the last, given how vigilant 3M is in protecting its various trademarks and other intellectual property. This time, I had a camera handy to capture it.

Now it's time for some questions.

Is there any question that this Accountemps billboard advertisement prominently features a Post-It brand note?

After all, 3M owns a non-traditional single-color trademark and federal trademark registration for the color canary yellow "used over the entire surface" of "stationery notes containing adhesive on one side for attachment to surfaces." In case you're wondering, at least one dictionary defines "canary yellow" as "a light yellow." Other 3M trademark registrations related to the Post-It brand refer more broadly to "yellow," and are not limited to "canary yellow," here, here, here.

This billboard ad appears to be yet another example of a well-known, if not famous, non-traditional trademark being used in another's advertising, not for comparison purposes, but as a prop to help sell goods or services totally unrelated to those of the non-traditional trademark owner. Is the use necessary? Is it appropriate? Should it be considered a fair use, if made without permission? Why didn't Accountemps make the stationery note prop appear in a color that is not trademarked?

Is the use likely to cause confusion, keeping in mind that actionable confusion is not limited solely to confusion about origin or source, but also protects consumers against likely confusion about affiliation, connection, association, sponsorship, or approval?

Is the look of 3M's Post-It note a famous trademark? If so, it is entitled to dilution protection too. Section 43(c) of the Lanham Act protects against "dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment of the famous mark, regardless of the presence or absence of actual or likely confusion, of competition, or of actual economic injury." If everyone started to depict a Post-It note in their ads would that tend to blur the distinctiveness of 3M's trademark or strenghten the brand? I'm thinking that trademark types and marketing types might have different takes on this question.

As you may recall, we previously have discussed the implications of using another's non-traditional trademark in advertising: Levi's Double Arcuate Design trademark and the shape of a Corvette from the 1960s.

So what do you think, does Accountemps need 3M's permission for this billboard advertisement?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (10)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Luxo AS, a Norwegian light manufacturer and distributor, has sued Disney and Pixar et. al. asserting various trademark-related claims arising from Disney's and Pixar's use of the LUXO trademark.  In an always interesting case of trademark law/branding meets fair use, Luxo has alleged that Disney/Pixar's use of "Luxo Jr." to identify the "hopping lamp," which has been the corporate mascot of Pixar since 1986, has crossed into the realm of forbidden behavior.

Although Pixar has been using the mascot since 1986, according to the complaint, it was only recently that infringing goods or services were being sold under the allegedly infringing mark.  Specifically, Disney/Pixar is now selling a limited edition DVD copy of Up packaged with a working "Luxo Jr." collectible desk lamp.   Additionally, they are using Luxo Jr. to draw in visitors at Disney's Hollywood Studios.

This case raises some interesting trademark related questions: (1) Has Luxo relinquished some of its rights by not previously attempting to stop Pixar's use of the "hopping lamp?"  (2) Why didn't Luxo take action earlier? (3) Absent Disney/Pixar's expansion of its use to selling lamps, would Luxo have had a viable infringement case?

If I had to venture a guess, I would say that Luxo didn't really have a problem with Disney/Pixar's use until it got a little too real with the lamp sales.  Arguably, the animations enhanced the popularity of Luxo's products and lead to increased lamp sales.  Luxo apparently didn't have a problem until Disney/Pixar tried to monetize some of that popularity itself by packaging a lamp with a DVD.

Moreover, the viability of an infringement claim would have likely required an examination of the often cited, yet often elusive "fair use" analysis.    As demonstrated by the Spa'am muppet case, infringement isn't clear cut when someone is using your mark to say something besides "buy my goods." 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

With less than 6 months to go until the 21st Winter Olympic Games in Vancouver, trade mark enforcement activities are beginning to heat up.

In January, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) launched its global campaign against the Canadian seal hunt with a version of the Vancouver 2010 Inukshuk logo clubbing a seal in a pool of blood above blood-soaked Olympic rings. PETA is also selling t-shirts, mugs, buttons and stickers displaying this logo, thus capitalizing on its use of the Olympic marks.

The Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games (VANOC), has publicly stated that it has no jurisdiction in this matter on the grounds that with PETA based in the United States, it is the US Olympic Committee's (USOC) responsibility to enforce the International Olympic Committee's rights in its trade marks.

The USOC duly complained about PETA's use of the phrase "Vancouver 2010" and the image of the Olympic rings on its products. In response, PETA publicly took the position that its use was protected as fair use, being an obvious parody. "Absent ... confusion, and in the context of a critical and parodic use of the images, there is no trade mark infringement." And there the matter appears to have ended, for now.

In June, 2009, PETA pushed the matter further with the launch of its website www.OlympicShame2010.com, which portrays the Vancouver Olympic mascots Miga, Quatchi and Sumi as bloodthirsty seal killers. 

PETA is clearly targeting the Vancouver Olympics in an attempt to put pressure on the Canadian government to end the Canadian seal hunt. Thus far, VANOC has declined to attempt to enforce its rights under Canadian intellectual property law, and the question remains, could it?

Intended to combat ambush marketing, the Olympic and Paralympic Marks Act (the OPMA) prohibits any person from adopting or using in connection with a business, as a trade mark or otherwise, an Olympic or Paralympic mark as set out in the Act. The OPMA provides for certain exceptions, including use for the purposes of criticism or parody. The Olympic rings, Inukshuk composite design, and the phrase "Vancouver 2010" are all Olympic marks for the purposes of the OPMA.

The Canadian Trade-marks Act also provides a mechanism to protect "official marks", which are uniquely Canadian. Entities that are "public authorities" such as VANOC and the Canadian Olympic Committee have the ability to request that public notice be given of their use and adoption. Once published in the Canadian Trade-marks Journal, official marks cannot be adopted by others in connection with a business, as trade marks or otherwise. Official marks, unlike regular trade marks, need not be associated with specific wares and services to be published and subsequently enforced. Once an official mark is published it does not need to be renewed and is virtually unexpungeable. Official marks accordingly possess far greater protection than any other kind of trade mark. The Inukshuk design, Olympic rings design, and Olympic mascot designs are all official marks owned by VANOC. 

With this statutory firepower at their disposal, could VANOC stop PETA's display of the Olympic marks?

PETA's "parody" defence could possibly be successful against any cause of action based on the OPMA, since the OPMA provides that use of an Olympic mark for the purposes of criticism or parody relating to Olympic Games is not a "use in connection with a business" (although one questions whether their "parody" qualifies as "parody relating to the Olympic or Paralympic Games"). 

Unlike the OPMA, there is no parody defence under the Canadian Trade-marks Act. However, to be successful, VANOC would have to prove that PETA's activities constitute adoption of the marks "in connection with a business" and that there is a sufficient Canadian nexus to PETA's activities for Canadian law to even apply. These are significant hurdles, and thus far, it appears that VANOC is reluctant to give PETA the publicity that a lawsuit would generate - no action has been commenced. 

An additional cause of action for VANOC could be copyright infringement based on PETA's use of the mascot designs. While PETA may view its use as fair use due to parody, there are a number of court cases holding that parody is not a defense to an infringement of intellectual property rights in Canada.

—Megan Langley Grainger, Bereskin & Parr LLP

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This unsolicited e-mail communication from the Caribbean Island of Nevis got trapped in our spam filter, but I thought I'd remove the link and bring it out under a short leash for some legal training and discussion:

Trademark fair use, you ask?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (6)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

              VS.         

Almost four months ago now, I blogged about the filing of the Gatorade v. Powerade false advertising and trademark dilution lawsuit, here. At the time, some called Gatorade's false advertising claims "dubious" and others chided Gatorade for biting Powerade's bait to file suit.

Advertising Age has now reported about the recent court ruling addressing Gatorade's request for an emergency preliminary injunction, here. For those of you who have been looking for a copy of the court's interesting 54-page decision, it is available, here.

As you will see, the Court's opening paragraph telegraphed its critical view of Gatorade's claims:

This is a case about an advertising battle between two major consumer products companies over one company's comparison of its beverage to human sweat. That company advertises its beverage by promoting its inclusion of certain electrolytes contained in sweat, and its competitor wants it to stop.

In short, G got an F in the courtroom. First, G failed to prove that any of the challenged statements were false or establish it was entitled to the requested emergency injunctive relief while the case works its way toward trial. Second, U.S. District Judge John G. Koeltl also found "frivolous" certain of G's arguments relating to alleged irreparable harm. Last, G appeared to frustrate the Court by ignoring it made similar advertising statements about its own Gatorade Endurance Formula product, as late as a week before filing suit against Powerade. The "pot calling the kettle black" never plays well in the courtroom. I wonder who is doing the sweating now.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

What has a head but no neck, feet but no legs, a perfectly tipped hat but no arms, is 7’10” tall, and induces glee and cavities in people of all ages? The world’s largest dispenser of Pez, of course! A creation of the founders of the Burlingame Museum of Pez Memorabilia (the “Museum”) in Northern California, the enormous snowman-headed Pez dispenser likely appears to most consumers as no more than the ultimate homage to this legendary candy and dispenser and the place they have achieved in the popular consciousness. 

The makers of Pez, however, beg to differ. In late June, Patrafico AG and Pez Candy, Inc., owners of the PEZ trademarks, trade dress and brand, sued the founders of the Museum for trademark infringement and related causes action stemming not only from the founders’ creation and promotion of the Snowman dispenser, but also from the founders’ alleged unauthorized manufacture and sale of unapproved Pez dispensers and related merchandise at the Museum. A copy of the complaint can be viewed here. 

The plaintiff’s filing of this suit raises some crucial questions about the nature of well-known trademarks and trademark owners’ desire to see their brands protected through litigation. First, it is possible that the defendants will raise the defense of nominative fair use, which I’ve blogged about before here. In a nutshell, nominative fair use allows Party A to use Party B’s trademark provided that Party A’s use of the trademark is necessary to identify Party B or its goods and services and Party A doesn’t use the mark to suggest that it is endorsed by Party B. Here, the Museum, which has not only operated for over 14 years, but did so for many years under agreement and with the blessing of the plaintiffs, appears to use the PEZ trademarks and trade dress to refer to Pez candy and Pez dispensers only – not to refer to other types of candy, such as Hershey’s Kisses or Laffy Taffy. Though I’ve never visited the Museum, the Museum’s web site includes a disclaimer of affiliation with the plaintiffs and a note that PEZ is a registered trademark of the plaintiffs. All in all, such use would appear at first blush to pass the nominative fair use sniff test.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I recently traveled to Omaha and noticed the following billboard:

For those not familiar with these companies, Qwest Communications is a telecommunications company that services many western states.  Cox Communications is another relatively large telecommunications company.  Both serve the Omaha area.  The billboard is an example of nominative fair use, which Steve explained here. 

While this is largely unremarkable, the billboard's value derives from the three most important things in business:  location, location, location.  You see, Omaha is home to the Qwest Center, which is a convention center and arena.  Upon exiting this door of the Qwest Center, patrons are looking due West -- directly at this Cox billboard about two blocks away.  The billboard employs a double meaning to make a pun and suggestion to patrons leaving the Qwest Center -- something that this billboard can only achieve in this location (or outside of Qwest Field in Seattle or Qwest Arena in Boise, but I'm not sure Cox provides services in these areas).  A clever one-upping in the "arena" of naming rights!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Finally, here is a photo of Rapala's "More Hits Than Google" billboard ad discussed previously in my Monday post entitled: "Rapala Fishing Lures: More Hits Than Google? Or, More Cats Than You Can Shake a Stick At? " Sorry for the delay folks.

Anyone notice the exceedingly small print located in the lower right corner of the billboard ad?

OK, leaving your microscopes at the lab, three guesses what it reads:

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Rapala, the world's largest manufacturer of fishing lures has pleasured us with some pretty clever and creative advertisements over the years, a lot of them award-winning ads too. For example, Carmichael Lynch created the above billboard ad that over time gradually "attracted cats" to the billboard featuring a super-sized Rapala minnow fishing lure. Lots of cats, in fact, many more than you can shake a stick at, you might say, if you fancy idioms and don't happen to be fond of those feline types. Carmichael Lynch notes: "With simplicity and humor, we've helped the [Rapala] brand connect with its enthusiast audience and grow to be the undisputed market leader for fishing lures." This is simply delicious creativity.

More recently, however, the undisputed market leader for fishing lures is now using the brand name of the undisputed market leader for Internet search engines in Rapala billboard advertising, apparently to continue growing Rapala's fishing lure business. Although there are Twitter tweets and other mentions on the web referring to this new Rapala billboard ad, I haven't been able to locate an online image yet, so I'll have to take a picture of the one I have seen myself and post it here when I can. In the meantime, just picture the above billboard minus the cats (and minnow lure) and with this slogan in large prominent black type above the red Rapala logo: "More Hits Than Google". Is this new Rapala billboard ad one of the award-winning variety?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (5)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

We have had somewhat of an unplanned blue jeans theme here at DuetsBlog, with Karen blogging about the upside down triangle logo associated with Guess designer jeans from the 1980s, here, and Tiffany blogging about Levi Strauss and Abercrombie & Fitch butting heads, here. My turn now to talk about a blue jean brand, along with airbrushing, non-traditional trademarks, and nominative fair use.

Some time ago I came across an advertiser's reward-type promotion, inviting customers to refer a friend and "pocket the cash" -- basically, a free cash reward for the successful referral. What interested me about the promotion was the prominent depiction of a Levi's back pocket complete with the Levi Strauss Double Arcuate Design on the denim pocket. After realizing this was no co-branding exercise and that a pair of Levi's jeans was not part of the reward, only cash, and this depiction was merely the advertiser's play on words or an attempt to reinforce the words in the promotion, it led me to wonder whether the advertiser even realized that it had used one of Levi Strauss' non-traditional trademarks, most likely without permission.

Here are a few examples of federally-registered non-traditional trademarks owned by Levi Strauss:

The one I encountered in the reward promotion was the center image minus the tab, so it's possible the well-known tab element was airbrushed to remove it as a trademark issue. The broader-scope registered mark on the right, however, indicates that simply removing the tab may not be sufficient to avoid all possible trademark issues.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Gripe sites have been around for almost as long as the Internet itself, and they tend to be difficult to shut down.  Conventional wisdom among brand owners is to send a threatening letter and play the odds that the (likely) individual with an axe to grind will not want to get sued by a corporation. 

There are two problems with that strategy.  First is the possibility that the letter will draw more attention to what is likely a sparsely visited site, or the person or entity running the gripe site will actually sue first, as Mike Morgan has done against Goldman Sachs.  Second, and by far the larger problem, is the failure to assess the root causes of the gripe site.  For many retailers, the roots can often be traced to a bad customer experience.  With Goldman, the issue seems to be more that Mr. Morgan is just looking for a place to vent.  Sometimes, the griper is just off the deep end.

As a usually disinterested observer, I find mild entertainment value in how clever the gripers can sometimes be with their domain names, like NoDaddy.com.  There is even enough gall and vinegar to fuel sites devoted to griping wholesale, like this one and this one (warning, these may be offensive).  Interestingly, I have yet to run across any sort of praise sites, like cokerocks.com.  Do any exist?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Advertising Age reports of the brand new false advertising lawsuit: Gatorade v. Powerade.

Daily Bread reports on the lawsuit too, here.

For those of you who have been looking for a copy of the complaint, it is finally available, here (pages 1-7), here (pages 8-14), here (pages 15-18), and here (pages 19-22).

More later, but for now the complaint has six counts, including: (1) Federal false and misleading advertising; (2) Federal trademark dilution; (3) Unfair competition under NY State Law; (4) Trademark Dilution under NY State Law; (5) Deceptive Acts & Practices under NY State Law; and (6) Common Law Unfair Competition.

Probably the most interesting claim will be the trademark dilution claims that allege tarnishment, disparagement, and a denigration of the famous GATORADE trademark and trade dress. These claims are reminiscent of the claims brought in the successful John Deere v. Yardman lawsuit from 1994, where the court enjoined an advertisement that put into motion and cast the famous running stag logo in an unfavorable light.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

What is it about some advertising campaigns that make them magnets for imitation?

For example, the Got Milk? imitators appear to be endless in numbers, but that is the subject of another post for another day. 

For today, with respect to a different imitation magnet: There must be an endless number of creative and original ways to market a series of home and self defense videotapes, I suspect. Even relying on fear as an underlying theme to sell these videotapes, there must be only a few less than infinity still possible.

So, why the need to borrow from a famous ad campaign here -- one I won't mention until after the jump below?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link