Duets Blog : Creativity and the Law: DuetsBlog

There is a time and a place for the use of double negatives. The Rolling Stones made the double negative "I Can't Get No" lyrics famous in the legendary hit Satisfaction (#2 on Rolling Stone Magazine's List of the Top Songs of All Time). Pink Floyd made the double negative lyrical phrase "We Don't Need No" famous in the song Another Brick in The Wall, Part 2. With respect to song titles, what about Diana Ross' recording of the double negative Ain't No Mountain High Enough?

Despite these widely popular uses, we are all taught (at an early age, my children have confirmed) not to use no double negatives, never, ever, as they are grammatically incorrect, inappropriate, and most likely to be avoided at all cost in writing and speech. Indeed, to fix the double negative problem, we also are taught that a double negative should be removed and resolve to a single positive. So, we're told that a double negative carries the same meaning as a single positive.

Does that mean Mick Jagger and Keith Richards really meant to say, "I Can Get Satisfaction"? What about the "We Don't Need No" lyrics? Did Roger Waters really intend to communicate that "We Need Both Education and Thought Control? Did Diana Ross really mean, "There is a Mountain High Enough"? Maybe, but I don't think so. Those "positive" versions of the double negative lyrics create entirely different meanings, in my opinion, and if used, they would have put us into a collective slumber.

So, clearly, there is a creative role for double negatives in music, but how about in branding?

My question was inspired driving into work a couple of weeks ago, as I was passed by a Sara Lee delivery truck prominently displaying a double negative tag line ("Nobody Doesn't Like Sara Lee"), confirming that the guardians of the Sara Lee brand continue to believe there is a time and place for the use of double negatives in branding.

In fact, Sara Lee owns several federal trademark registrations for the "Nobody Doesn't Like Sara Lee" tag line covering a wide range of food items, including "rolls, pies, cakes, cheesecake, muffins, ice cream," "flavored mustards, sauces and mayonaises," "cheese," "bread, bagels and buns," "bakery goods," "processed meats," and "frozen prepared meat lasagna entrees."

Perhaps not surprisingly, I couldn't find any other trademark on the entire USPTO database that included both of the terms "nobody" and "doesn't." Given how unique and inherently awkward the phrase is, one might wonder whether substituting any term or other brand name for Sara Lee might avoid a likelihood of confusion with the original.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (11)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Can you name the owner of this exclamation mark branding signal?

You may be surprised to learn it is federally-registered in the U.S. as a stand-alone non-verbal trademark.

You may be even more surprised to learn, it was federally-registered without a showing of secondary meaning or acquired distinctiveness, because it was viewed as an inherently distinctive non-verbal trademark.

This is no ordinary exclamation mark, however, the trademark owner claims it in a 3D appearance, does that help?

Here's another clue: In Latin American countries, the brand name associated with this particular punctuation mark is Pepitos!

Last clue: Would it help to know the goods associated with this registered trademark are chocolate chip cookies?

Answer below the jump.

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

The inquiring minds at TechDirt have unearthed a spat between Apple and Woolworths (the supermarket chain in New Zealand and Australia) due to the latter’s adoption of a curly-cue-letter-W-shaped mark, shown below:

Putting aside dilution issues, the central question would appear to be whether confusion is possible, let alone likely, given that Woolworths is a grocery store where people purchase…groceries, including apples (both green and red!) and Apple sells computers, phones and addictive little music devices. Many of the folks leaving comments to the article answered this question in the negative.

But there’s a larger issue lurking beneath the surface of this spat—specifically, the fact that Woolworths is seeking registration of its mark in connection with electronics and other goods that are related and may in fact compete with Apple’s electronic devices. New Zealand and Australia, like the United States, are “first to use” countries, meaning that purveyors of goods and services may assert rights in their trademarks and service marks upon first use and accrue common law rights from that time, which in this case may well provide Apple with priority and victory over Woolworths in New Zealand and Australia (provided, of course, that consumers are likely to confuse the two marks for electronics and related goods and services). 

In contrast, if New Zealand or Australia were “first to file” countries, Apple would be facing a tougher battle. “First to file” countries—including much of the European Union, China, Japan and India—allow the earliest filer to obtain a registration of a given mark. These countries likewise often allow registrants to claim the entirety of goods and services in any given class, making challenges for U.S. companies even more time-consuming and costly.

Regardless of the filing system at issue, it is important for U.S. companies to consider foreign businesses and their trademarks in their overall strategy in investing in and protecting their brands.

• 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

= or ?

In March, I commented on the possibility that Victorinox and Wenger, long-time makers of Swiss Army knives, were stretching the Swiss Army brand too far, to the detriment of the overall quality of the goods and the goodwill in the Swiss Army trademarks.  A recent development seems to support my hypothesis. 

Victorinox, which owns Wenger, recently celebrated its 125th anniversary.  While this is a respectable accomplishment for any business, one of the press reports included the following:

In 2005 Victorinox took over its last Swiss rival, Wenger, which was sliding into financial trouble. The brands still trade independently.

"We felt it was important because we wanted to prevent a foreign company taking over Wenger and producing the Swiss Army knife in the Far East or produce other products that could hurt our brand image," explained [Carl] Elsener[, Victorinox president].

Well, it appears that Mr. Elsener's fears may be coming true.  On August 3, Swiss customs officials seized 116 boxes of Victorinox goods (none of them knives) made in China and Taiwan for violating Swiss law governing trademarks and emblems.  (Story here.)  Specifically, the individual who filed a complaint that led to the seizure has argued that Victorinox benefits from using a trademark (see the shield design above) that closely resembles the Swiss flag (above), when the goods are not, in fact, made in Switzerland. 

While Victorinox and its seized goods may yet be vindicated under Swiss law, this is a good "designation of origin" compliance reminder, regardless of where your company is located.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• 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

I, like most women, want a present in a little blue box from Tiffany & Company (a/k/a Tiffany & Co.) This is not just because the company bears my name (I only wish I were an owner of the company), but because Tiffany & Co.’s exquisite jewelry is associated with the fabulous blue box.  Tiffany & Co. has been around for over 170 years. The mystique of Tiffany & Co. was enhanced by the movie “Breakfast at Tiffany’s” starring the beloved Audrey Hepburn. To protect this long-established brand and trademark that epitomizes luxury and attentive customer service, Tiffany & Co. took to the courts to obtain protection from Internet sales of counterfeits.  

eBay has become a hotbed for counterfeit sales of many high-end products. To assess the impact of this practice, Tiffany & Co. embarked on two buying programs where it bought products that had been represented to be authentic Tiffany & Co. merchandise on eBay. The overwhelming majority of these purchases, as much as seventy-five percent, were fakes. 

To combat this trademark infringement and dilution, Tiffany & Co. sued eBay in 2004 alleging that eBay had facilitated and allowed these fake or counterfeit items to be sold on its website (bringing six causes of action, including various trademark infringement, dilution and false advertising claims under the Lanham Act). Last month, a New York District Court found that Tiffany & Co.—not eBay—was responsible for protecting its brand and trademark on the auction site. In other words, eBay is not responsible for keeping its users from selling fake jewelry with the Tiffany & Co. name. eBay is only required to take appropriate action when it receives notice of the infringement, presumably from Tiffany & Co. Not surprisingly, Tiffany & Co. has appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. 

Does this decision ignore an important tenet of the Lanham Act—that it is supposed to protect consumers and trademark owners? Should eBay and other sites such as Amazon.com have independent obligations not to contribute to trademark infringement (i.e., policing their websites)? 

Several other high-end companies have sued eBay in Europe and have fared much better than Tiffany & Co. did in the United States.   A French judge ordered eBay to pay 40 million euros (in light of the current low value of the United States dollar, this would translate to $63.2 million) to LVMH Moёt Hennessy Louis Vuitton over charges of selling fakes. Similarly, the German courts held that eBay must employ preventative measures against the sale of fake Rolex watches.  Unless the Second Circuit overturns the New York District Court’s decision, consumers and trademark owners will receive more protection in Europe than in the United States. Should American courts be more friendly to trademark owners?

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

Hotel chains appear determined to own single-letter trademarks anymore. Yes, the lodging industry appears headed toward serving up a regular bowl of alphabet soup you might say. Do you recognize any of these single letter hotel marks?  

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

Josh Brooks of packagingnews.co.uk reports, here, that Coca-Cola has succeeded before the Paris Court of Appeal in banning the production and sale of Yoplait's Dizzy brand "milk-based fizzy drink." Coca-Cola's winning Blak bottle is shown below side-by-side with the losing Yoplait Dizzy bottle:

It appears from the news report that the French success was based purely on the distinctive shape of Coca-Cola's Blak bottle. Putting the bottle shapes aside, if one were considering the non-shape visual aspects of trade dress, one might be tempted to call the Coca-Cola Blak beverage, night, and the Yoplait Dizzy beverage, day, since that is about how much they otherwise share in common.

It will be interesting to see how this ruling impacts (if at all) Yoplait's apparent intention to launch its Dizzy beverage in the U.S. marketplace. Yoplait's word mark application for Dizzy was just issued a Notice of Allowance by the U.S. Trademark Office last month, so unless Yoplait requests an extension of time to submit evidence of use in the U.S., we might see the U.S. version of the Dizzy product by November 2009, if not sooner. Interestingly, Yoplait abandoned a bottle shape trademark application a couple of years ago, here, having a virtually identical identification of goods, and it was initially refused registration on functionality and non-distinctiveness grounds, but not on confusing similarity to Coca-Cola's distinctive bottle shape trademark.

Hat tip to JoAnn Hines, The Packaging Diva, on the Josh Brooks article. 

By the way, DuetsBlog readers should check out www.PackagingLaunch.com, a new and interesting site launched by JoAnn, "Where Packages Are Judged By the People Who Buy Them" and a slate of Guest Authors with various backgrounds and experience, including yours truly.

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