Duets Blog : Creativity and the Law: DuetsBlog

As we have previously written, one way to acquire trademark rights in a non-traditional trademark, especially a product configuration trademark, is to use "look for" advertising.  Here's an example, although not a very prominent use of the "look for" slogan (here in context):

You don’t have to cross the Pacific to enjoy the sweet taste of a Hawaiian original. King’s Hawaiian Sweet Bread can be found throughout the mainland at your local market.  Look for our distinctive “Island Orange” packaging in your service deli or hot bakery section. Take a moment to escape to paradise with King’s Hawaiian!

The real trick, though, is to have your ads and marketing materials convey "look for" without saying "look for."  You have to know when to hit the consumer over the head, and when not to. 

Here's a commercial for Glaxo Group's ADVAIR product that, in my opinion, does that perfectly (sorry, couldn't find a better copy). 

Not surprisingly, Glaxo has a pending application to register the configuration of the ADVAIR "Diskus" as a trademark.  Despite the colorless image, the application does claim the colors purple and white as part of the mark.  Although I have not reviewed the application in detail, Glaxo seems to have positioned this product well to succeed with this registration.

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

A couple of months ago there was quite a buzz about Holiday Inn's projected $4 million annual savings by moving to a leaner and greener direction with their adoption of LED lighting on exterior signage. 

As you may recall, back in June we blogged about Holiday Inn's interesting effort to federally register a pair of non-traditional lighting trademarks, one employing a green-colored lighting scheme and the other employing a blue lighting scheme: 

We had noted it would likely take a strong showing of "look for" advertising to overcome the registration refusals initially lodged by the Trademark Office.

Instead of attempting to overcome the registration refusals, however, Holiday Inn apparently has opted for a leaner approach and cost savings on the trademark front too, settling for Supplemental Registrations, a much dimmer form of protection -- offering no legal presumptions of validity, ownership, or exclusive right to use.

About the only meaningful benefit of a Supplemental Registration for a service mark is that it blocks and prevents others from obtaining Principal Registration for confusingly similar marks. Here are the official drawings associated with those newly issued Supplemental Registrations:

In addition to amending the applications to seek registration on the Supplemental Register, Holiday Inn tweaked the description of the marks to read as follows (for the green mark):

The mark consists of green lighting formed by four light fixtures placed in a symmetrical fashion near the entryway of the building. One set of two green lights is evenly placed on columns to the right and left of the entryway and direct the green lighting downward thereby casting a green shadow down the length of the column; while the other set of two green lights is evenly placed on the building wall above the entryway and direct the green lighting upwards, casting a green shadow up the length of the wall and roof overhang. The matter shown by the dotted lines is not a part of the mark and serves only to show the position of the mark.

Perhaps Holiday Inn will be back -- with a brighter approach down the road -- to seek Principal Registration after it believes it has sufficient evidence to establish acquired distinctiveness.

Any thoughts on how long that might take?

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

A couple of months ago I saw in a convenience store a large Snickers point-of-sale floor-display depicting a prominent and attention-getting cross-section of a Snickers candy bar. Given Mars' apparent interest in owning and creating non-traditional trademark rights surrounding the Snickers brand (revisit Dan's post from earlier this year), it made me wonder whether Mars might view (and want consumers to view) the cross-section of the famous Snickers candy bar as a trademark too. After all, trademarks are one form of intellectual property that can last forever, so long as they continue to be used in commerce. In case you're wondering, I couldn't find any indication that Mars has sought to register any candy bar cross-sections as trademarks.

Now, keeping in mind, to be a non-traditional trademark, the symbol or device must (a) identify the goods, (b) distinguish the goods from those of others, and (c) indicate the source of the goods, there appears to be (at least) some potential for treating candy bar cross-sections as trademarks, provided the cross-sections actually are used as trademarks in commerce. In other words, it's not enough that the bars could be sliced to view their otherwise purely internal cross-sections; depictions of the cross-sections would have to appear on packaging or at least point-of-sale materials (advertising alone won't cut it).

So, to satisfy a court's hunger for the "use in commerce" requirement, and if depicting the candy bar cross-section on packaging leads to a creative buzz-kill, then a prominent cross-section on point-of-sale displays should suffice. Having said that, given the non-traditional nature of a cross-sectional trademark, perhaps some "look-for" advertising might be just what the candy man ordered to help create the cross-section as a delicious new non-traditional trademark. The Candyblog certainly enjoys showing cross-sections of candy bars in discussing the pros and cons of the various goodies they review.

What about functionality, you ask? Yes, if the depiction of the cross-section is determined to be functional, then it can never serve or be protected as a trademark. What do you think, is it functional? While the taste of the candy bar is clearly functional, the appearance of the cross-section is far less clearly functional. For example, presumably taste would remain unchanged so long as the ingredients remain constant, even with multiple variations on the internal configuration and layering of those ingredients.

There are actually some on-line quizzes you can take to test your visual sweet tooth skills, on Slashfood, here, and The Science Museum of Minnesota's Thinking Fountain, here. Some are easier than others. Now, to the extent consumers are able to "name" the candy bar associated with the shown cross-section, does that help satisfy all three trademark elements or only the first two? And, to avoid the leading nature of the question (as criticized in a U.K. trademark opposition brought against Mars involving candy bar appearance) would it make sense to first ask respondents whether they are able to determine who put out the candy bar in question by only seeing its cross-section?

On a related note, Mars is currently soliciting video content "starring" Snickers, so perhaps some creative type will accept the assignment, and in the process, author some powerful "look-for" advertising to help Mars acquire and build non-traditional trademark rights in the Snickers cross-section. If I were to accept the assignment, my submission would be to depict nothing but the cross-section of a Snickers candy bar within the non-traditional federally-registered parallelogram shape, but then, I'm a trademark type with only limited creative abilities.

So, can you identify a Snickers bar and distinguish it from others by the cross-section alone?

Do you believe consumers perceive the cross-section as a trademark pointing uniquely to one single brand?

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

As you may recall, last month, we had some fun trying to solve the mystery of a non-traditional and non-verbal trademark owned by Amazon.com, here.

This time the non-traditional and non-verbal mystery mark shown above is described in trademark filings as consisting of "four circles that increase in size from left to right." I call it an "increasingly intense ellipsis." What would you call it, if you had to give it a name?

More importantly, have you seen it before? Do you recognize it? Are you surprised to know it is registered and protected as a trademark? Do you know what goods and services are associated with it? Do you know who owns it?

OK, need more information?

You don't need the products bearing this "increasingly intense ellipsis" mark or the services associated with it to shop online at Amazon.com or any other online retailer. Did that help?

No? Here's another hint: It is used in close association with this service mark: Tap & Go.

Still not enough? Alright, enough suspense?

The visual answer and more discussion is below the jump.

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

Time for me to play dumb consumer and ask an honest question.  What is the conventional wisdom in relaunching or revitalizing a brand:  do you tell consumers that you're doing it, or not? 

I suspect that there is no universal answer, but Holiday Inn's "relaunch" has admittedly caught my attention.  (It caught Steve's attention here.)  Every morning on the way to work for the past several months, I have passed a billboard for Holiday Inn stating, "We're making big changes."  Since my first viewing of the billboard, my brain has always followed with a thought along the lines of, "Well, you must have needed it."  Why would a company mess with success? 

More commentary after the jump . . .

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Tommy has a lot to offer in advancing the recognition of certain kinds of non-traditional trademarks, especially touch marks. Yes, The Who's tune from the Tommy Soundtrack "See Me, Feel Me / Listening to You" repeats these lyrics over and over: "See me, feel me, touch me, heal me."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (8)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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

Let's revisit the topic of non-traditional "touch" trademarks today.

Of all the traditional five human senses (sight, hearing, taste, smell, and touch) and trademarks that can be perceived by one or more of those senses, touch, a/k/a tactile, a/k/a texture trademarks are just about as uncommon as any (taste, perhaps, being the least common). Indeed, back in 2006, Marty Schwimmer from The Trademark Blog correctly noted the dearth of recognized tactile marks. Moreover, despite a 2006 INTA Board of Directors' Resolution supporting the protection of touch marks, few appear to have reached for or grabbed any such protection (putting aside Kimberly-Clark, already blogged about here).

As arguably one of the most intimate of the senses: 'Touch is the first sense developed in the womb and the last sense used before death." Given that and given other unique characteristics of "touch" among the senses, it is a bit surprising that touch marks haven't been pursued more by marketers looking to create intimate, emotional connections with a brand: "Another distinction of the sense of touch is that it is identified with the real. You can't believe your eyes, nor your ears, and taste is personal and subjective, but touch is proof." By the way, since touch/tactile/texture marks are so uncommon, why can't we agree on what to call them? For what its worth, my vote is to call them "touch" marks since that is the term that names the underlying basic human sense.

Anyway, with that background, as far as I can tell, the one industry that seems to show the most promise or, at least, interest in touch trademarks, is the alcoholic beverages industry, most particularly those companies that focus on selling distilled spirits or wine.

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

Notice anything special about this pair of photographs featuring two different Holiday Inn front entrances? OK, putting aside that the one on the right -- with green lighting -- seems to have attracted, at least, a few cars, whereas the "blue light special" on the left appears to stage a full house with virtually every room light on, but ironically it reveals an empty parking lot.

Well, these aren't ordinary photographs, they are trademark specimens of use; Six Continents Hotels, owner of the Holiday Inn brand, claims that they depict a pair of non-traditional trademarks, having filed them with the U.S. Trademark Office in April 2009, and asserting that use of the "lighting" marks commenced back in January 2008. So, we aren't talking about the new H logo previously blogged about here or the old Holiday Inn word mark -- those are standard and traditional single-letter logo and word trademarks. In case you're wondering, no sign of any red or yellow lights for Holiday Inn, at least, on the Trademark Office database.

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

When are trademarks touchy? Ask the good people at Kimberly-Clark®.

 One example might be when they are risky to use because of the prior rights of another. This “touchy” example is not unique to Kimberly-Clark®, of course, it is known to anyone who has been through the naming process, and as Aaron Keller of Capsule has noted, “has the scars to prove it.”

Another “touchy” example might be when the public misuses a famous trademark as a generic term and the brand owner risks losing exclusive rights through changes in the common meaning of the term. Avoiding the risk of this happening is something Kimberly-Clark® knows more than a little about, I suspect. No doubt, the legal team at Kimberly-Clark® has done an impressive job of preventing the KLEENEX® brand from following former brands like ESCALATOR, TRAMPOLINE, and ZIPPER, to name a few, into the unpleasant graveyard of genericide.

Yet another example of a “touchy” trademark is one that can be a challenge to register, own and protect. Maybe because it falls into the non-traditional category and doesn’t automatically function as a trademark upon first use. Perhaps because tricky “Look-For Ads” are an important key to success. Here, Kimberly-Clark® has experience, too. It won its recent legal effort to obtain a federal trademark registration for “the configuration of the container used to dispense” facial tissue, shown below:

Last, but certainly not least, it appears Kimberly-Clark® is currently working on registering a completely new brand of “touchy” trademark. Literally, a “sensory, touch mark” (a/k/a “tactile mark,” see The Trademark Blog) apparently for “disposable paper hand towels.” Just a couple of months ago, Kimberly-Clark® filed an intent-to-use trademark application for a mark that “consists of a distinctive arrangement of textured alternating dot pattern appearing on the surface of the carton of disposable paper hand-towels.” The claimed mark is shown below:

As I read it, the above tactile pattern is being claimed as a trademark applied to product packaging, not the hand-towels themselves, but we’ll see if that follows.

No doubt, the Trademark Office will offer-up some hurdles, but none that can’t be overcome with some more creative collaboration between the legal and marketing teams at Kimberly-Clark®. Stay tuned and keep all your senses focused on this one!

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

I often remind branding professionals that trademark law rewards their creativity. Some seem to perk up with this subtle encouragement. After all, everyone likes to be rewarded, right? Well, one of the unobvious rewards for creativity comes in the prompt timing of when trademark ownership begins. Being able to own and enjoy exclusive rights on "day one"—meaning, either the first day of use, or even before first use, upon the filing of a federal intent-to-use trademark application—is a big deal in the world of trademark and brand protection. In fact, timing can be everything. Even a single day can be the difference between having the right to exclusivity and owning nothing at all (except perhaps, the losing end of a lawsuit and a pile of product and packaging ordered to be destroyed). On the other hand, when rights are not available on day one, you may have an uncontrollable situation; one where competitors and others have an opening to copy or mimic before enforceable rights attach, and in some cases, these actions can make it difficult, if not impossible to obtain exclusive trademark rights at all. So, the timing of when trademark rights are acquired is quite important, and those in the business of creating brands play an important role in when those rights may come to be.

As the opening paragraph suggests, trademarks are not all created equal. Inherently distinctive trademarks are the obvious target, the gold standard, for brand names because they are always recognized and rewarded with immediate legal rights. Courts view these marks as sufficiently creative and unique to presume they function as trademarks, believing without proof they automatically identify, distinguish, and indicate source. Inherently distinctive word mark examples include KODAK for film (coined trademark), APPLE for computer (arbitrary mark), and COPPERTONE for suntan oil (suggestive mark). Descriptive marks, on the other hand, while capable of being owned and acquiring distinctiveness, are not inherently distinctive. In fact, they are inherently lacking in creativity, so those who pick (not create) these designations must live with the uncertainty of when, if ever, exclusive rights attach. Owning them takes longer, is more expensive, and is more difficult. This is because the law refuses to presume a trademark function with the use of descriptive terms. Nor does the law reward those who choose to "hit the consumer over the head" with such a blunt device (would-be trademark); one that immediately and overtly describes something about the product. As a consequence, picking (not creating) a descriptive mark, brings a state of limbo for an unspecified period of time, where there can be little or no control of destiny. These folks typically have to hope others voluntarily steer clear until after acquired distinctiveness is achieved. For example, the CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN mark was used for six years before those words were owned as a federally registered mark. A lot can happen in six years to get in the way of obtaining exclusivity. Generic terms, even worse than descriptive ones, apparently "hit the consumer over the head" so badly with the obvious connection to the goods that they are incapable of being trademarks—they cannot be owned, they are simply part of the public domain, free for all to use. Examples include LITE for beer and BRICK OVEN for pizza—both name entire product categories, they don't identify, distinguish, or indicate source. There is simply nothing creative about them.

So, if "hitting the consumer over the head" is not a rewarded activity for branding professionals, where is the other half of the lesson, the promised paradox piece? Actually, there is a time and place for everything and being blunt, direct, and overt is not always a mistake for marketers. At times, bluntness and overtness is not only rewarded, but an important component for legal success. The key is knowing and understanding those circumstances where "hitting the consumer over the head" is appropriate, beyond repeated purse-snatching or shoplifting episodes, of course. This is where the paradox comes into play.

As you may recall, we previously blogged about some types of non-traditional trademarks here. Non-traditional trademark formats extend far beyond words and logos, encompassing any other subject matter that may be perceived by one or more of the five senses, provided they still identify, distinguish, and indicate source. Color, product configuration, product packaging, uniforms, restaurant interiors, building exteriors, sound, touch, scent, and taste, all have potential. What we haven't explained before about many types of non-traditional marks is that the law can be quite skeptical of them, and as a consequence, proof that they actually function as trademarks can be helpful in easing the skepticism. When such proof is required, the target, or the gold standard, is being able to point to "look for advertising"—consumer communications where one directly informs of an intention to treat non-traditional subject matter as a trademark. So, "hitting the consumer over the head" with this blunt and overt "look for" advertising can be necessary and important, if not critical. Because the Trademark Office or a court might be highly skeptical of a claimed trademark in the polka dot background of a product label, it may want to see evidence that the claimed trademark owner was blunt in stating its intentions on packaging and in advertising, "Look for the Polka Dot Label, as a sign of high quality milk from XYZ Company." Perhaps the mark is the container itself, so "Look for the unusual shape of our milk container to be sure you are getting high quality milk from XYZ Company" is needed. These very overt kinds of marketing statements are a common element of many successful efforts to protect various non-traditional, yet visual trademarks. Most such statements are boring, pedestrian, and not very creative. They seem to distract from other important messages to convey. One good exception is the "What Can Brown Do For You?" tagline, used by UPS, to reinforce a more creative form of "look for" advertising to acquire exclusive rights in the color brown for the various services it provides.

As non-traditional trademarks proliferate, the brand new challenge of creativity will be in developing the legal equivalents of "look for" advertising when marks touching the other non-visual senses are involved. Using the admittedly clunky "look for" phrase won't even work when something other than a consumers eyes need to experience the claimed mark. The challenge there will be in coming up with creative and engaging ways to be overt about the intention of having consumers experience the subject matter in question as a trademark.

So, when creating and building new brands, consider whether being blunt and overt or subtle and suggestive, is the right course of action, to achieve your desired result.

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