Duets Blog : Creativity and the Law: DuetsBlog

More on single color trademarks today. Eighteen months ago, Wolf Appliance obtained a federal trademark registration in connection with "a red knob or knobs" of "domestic gas and electric cooking appliances, namely, ranges, dual-fuel ranges, cooktops, and barbeque grills."

Wolf put its registration to the test a couple of weeks ago in a federal trademark infringement action, venued in the Western District of Wisconsin, in which it asked the court for immediate injunctive relief to stop arch-rival Viking Range from offering a Red Knob Kit as an accessory for its competing high-end residential cooking ranges (typically equipped with standard black knobs).

Here is a pdf of the decision, granting Wolf's request for a preliminary injunction. The Wisconsin State Journal reported on the decision. Last December, ApplianceAdvisor.com shared a rather cynical view of Wolf's single color claim of exclusivity when the lawsuit was first filed.

So, how did Wolf pull it off? Well, here's the short answer:

1. Before bringing the lawsuit, Wolf obtained a federal trademark registration for the knobs, entitling it to a presumption of validity when the time came to enforce exclusive rights;
2. To demonstrate secondary meaning in its red knobs, Wolf made good use of "look for advertising" on its website: "Choose black knobs, or let everyone know it's a Wolf with our distinctive red knobs;" in catalogs: "Knob appeal. This is, perhaps, the first thing one notices about a Wolf product. The red knobs serve as a reminder of its distinctive nature"; and in advertising: touting the red knobs as "distinctive" and an "exclusive Wolf feature";
3. Viking apparently stopped selling a range with red knobs back in 1993, and since 2000, Wolf had made "substantially exclusive" use of red knobs on domestic cooking ranges; and
4. Greatly assisting its secondary meaning claim to the red knobs, Wolf enjoyed the benefit of significant media attention and stories, specifically mentioning Wolf's "distinctive," "iconic," "classic," "recognizable," "status symbol," "trademark," and "signature" red knobs.

Trademark types, doesn't the court's recognition and reliance on this very helpful media attention evidence make you want to collaborate with your favorite PR type the next time your client is pursuing a single color trademark or some other form of non-traditional trademark rights?

With respect to the question of likelihood of confusion, the Court was moved that there could be initial interest confusion through this hypothetical scenario:

"Suppose a potential range customer is at a dinner party and the hostess tells the potential customer how much the hostess enjoys her range. The range happens to be a Wolf range with red knobs. Several weeks or months later, when the potential customer enters a retail store to browse ranges, he or she sees a stainless steel Viking range displayed with red knobs that looks similar to the red-knob range he or she has seen in the past. There are no other ranges displayed with red knobs. The customer does not remember the brand of the hostess' range, but the customer knows that Viking is a well-known manufacturer in the high-end range market. The red knobs look familiar, so the customer thinks this is the range to which the hostess spoke so highly. . . . Such a situation could qualify as 'initial interest' confusion, because defendant would be reaping the benefit of the goodwill that the plaintiff has developed in its mark."

Are you concerned? Do you find this hypothetical scenario plausible?

What remains to be seen is whether the case continues to conclusion for the entry of a permanent injunction after a full trial. While it is true that the grant or denial of a preliminary injunction often results in an amicable settlement of the lawsuit, this case may not end that way.

Even though Viking lost the first round in this bout, it has brought a counterclaim to cancel the red knob trademark registration issued by the U.S. Trademark Office in 2008. Moreover, if Viking determines that it has a commercial and competitive need to offer the Red Knob Kit, it would be rather easy to resume distribution of the kits at a later time, provided it is able to either invalidate the registration or win on the ultimate issue of whether there is a likelihood of confusion in the marketplace for residential cooking ranges. 

To the extent Viking Range decides to continue its defense and counterclaim to invalidate Wolf's red knob registration, I predict that discovery will vigorously probe functionality as a possible basis for invalidation. A win on functionality would be complete, it would knock out the registration, and make it unnecessary to even consider the likelihood of confusion question of infringement.

In case you're wondering about scope, it would appear that both commercial ovens and toy ovens having red knobs are outside the scope of Wolf's registered trademark.

Stay tuned for more on this interesting case.

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

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

With more than a little help from Betty White and Abe Vigoda, Mars topped USA Today's AdMeter for 2010 Super Bowl television advertisements.

For anyone out there who thought Abe Vigoda had passed on, and Mars' ad was just another technological resurrection of a dead actor to sell products, like me, you're operating on old and incorrect information, really old and incorrect information.

People magazine apparently jumped the gun back in 1982, and I never caught the correction or the many running jokes that followed his premature obituary. OK, so I apparently missed every one of his film and television appearances since then too.

While we're on the subject of missing information, for those of you who never caught my previous post about whether Mars could pursue the cross-section of a Snickers candy bar -- as a trademark -- here you go. For those of you who never caught Dan's post about Snickers apparent efforts to establish non-traditional trademark rights, here you go.

Note the prominent candy bar cross-section in the final scene of the Snickers commercial?

Mars, us hungry trademark types are waiting. . . . 

UPDATE: AdvertisingAge reports that Snickers ad tops Nielsen IAG Ad Ratings too.

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

A couple of months ago I blogged about Branding Exclamations!

Before that I blogged about Increasingly Intense Ellipsis Branding . . . .

Now, it appears I must revisit the subject of punctuation mark branding given Cadbury Adams' new Mega Mystery Stride brand gum, prominently featuring a question mark logo on the packaging where the S logo normally appears.

The mystery apparently surrounds the presently undisclosed flavor of the gum. The unknown flavor appears to be part of Stride's claimed Ridiculously Long Lasting Gum, not to be confused, of course, with Wrigley's Curiously Strong mints and gum (Altoids).

Anyway, my daughter brought a pack of the ? gum home and said, "Daddy, you should blog about this," so now you know the inspiration for my curiously strong or ridiculously long attention to this subject.

I fully expected to find a pending trademark application filed by Cadbury Adams for the "?" symbol, given its ridiculously flavorful interest in single letter chewing gum brands. To my surprise, however, I found none, at least yet.

As you might have imagined, I did find some "?" trademarks of others, as shown below. Do you recognize any of them? Each "?" image is linked to the corresponding trademark record at the U.S. Trademark Office.

Turns out, there is a ? trademark battle heating up too. Not in the world of confections, but rather in the world of fashion. Just days ago, Guess IP Holder L.P., owner of the famous Guess brand, filed a Trademark Opposition against one of the above Question Mark logos, guess which one?

It asserted ownership of these federally-registered trademarks:

But not any of these, for some reason:

To find out, click here for a link to a copy of the Notice of Opposition.

Any more questions?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (13)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In December, you may recall, I blogged about Boise State's federal registration of the color blue as applied to athletic field turf, known to many as Smurf Turf. At the time, I wondered out loud whether Boise State's success in the U.S. Trademark Office might lead others to follow along this trademark path?

Hat tip again to Brad Frazer, for letting us know that last week, apparently inspired by Boise State's success and notoriety, Eastern Washington University, located in Cheny, Washington, announced its "Red Turf" project for its Woodward Field, shown below:

The plan, supported by a generous $500,000 gift from Eagle alum Michael Roos of the Tennessee Titans and his wife Katherine, has targeted completion in time for the opening of the 2010 football season, if all goes well with additional fund-raising efforts. The red artificial turf promises to be the first of its kind, not just in NCAA Division I football, but in the entire country, so the path appears clear for claiming, or I should say, at least working toward claiming, exclusive rights in the red-colored athletic turf.

Given how some have predicted this plan promises to cause a run on multi-colored turf by publicity-starved schools, I'm left wondering whether Eastern Washington will seek ownership and file an application to federally-register red in the same way that Boise State did with blue. Of course, one of the differences between the two is about twenty some years of use and notoriety.

A long period of substantially exclusive use goes a long way to establishing acquired distinctiveness when dealing with non-traditional trademarks such as single-color marks. Along those lines, it is worth noting the U.S. Supreme Court has indicated in Wal-Mart v. Samara that single colors can never be considered inherently distinctive, so Eastern Washington would have to establish secondary meaning or acquired distinctiveness in the red turf, as Boise State did with blue, before any registration on the Principal Register could issue.

In addition, since the proposed single color red turf mark is not in use yet, Eastern Washington could file an intent-to-use application, and assuming it could acquire distinctiveness or establish secondary meaning in the red-colored turf during the pendency of the application, the filing date would relate back and serve as its nationwide constructive use date for national priority purposes. The problem with not filing such an application is, if another athletic program were to do so before Eastern Washington was able to complete the project and provide athletic events on the new turf, it may find itself in the undesirable position as the second-comer for priority purposes, even though it might have been the first to come up with the idea for a red turf athletic field.

Sounds to me like a job for a team of creative trademark, marketing and PR types, to accelerate the period of time needed to develop the necessary evidence of acquired distinctiveness.

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

Brands communicate with the world through a series of message delivery systems such as broadcast advertising, web sites, company representatives and product interaction. These systems utilize brand signals to communicate. While these signals commonly take the form of brand names and logos, they can also extend into sight, sound, touch, taste, smell or even action such as a brand ritual.

Brand signals are far more than an aesthetic veneer. They turn abstract meaning into tangible cues, allowing consumers to better navigate the marketplace. Functioning as vessels, these signals carry learned and associative meaning. That meaning is often instilled by the brand owner and further enhanced by the audience. The connotation of a brand signal evolves over time, as either the brand owner or its audience fills the vessel with new meaning that displaces the original. Take for example, two well know brand signals that once represented something very different than they do today, the ENRON name and logo. The original meaning was displaced by consumers’ new understanding of “ENRON.”

The most effective brands use a wide array of signals to manage consumers’ expectations. Many of these are co-authored by the brand owner and its audience. These signals communicate on multiple levels: Specifically and Categorically, Individually and Collectively.

Specifically and Categorically
When a signal is specific to a given brand, it directly equates to that brand: The names McDonald’s and Big Mac directly equate to the McDonald’s brand as do the golden arches and Ronald McDonald. Yet, we also recognize brand signals by category. These signals indicate brands by type. We relate the yellow and red color scheme to the fast food/burger category. Have you ever noticed how McDonald’s, Burger King and Wendy’s all share the same color scheme? Coincidence? McDonald’s (first to market) established the color scheme that has defined the fast food burger joint category for generations.

Individually and Collectively
Some brand signals carry enough meaning to hold up individually such as a company’s name, its logo or even an iconic shape. Such is the case with Coca-Cola’s “contour bottle.” With its distinctive curves, it is one of the most recognized icons in the world. Designed so it could be identified in the dark and shaped so that, even if broken, it is identifiable at a glance; the unique bottle design ensures that Coca-Cola is never confused with competitors.

Other brand signals work collectively. A slice of lime on its own says nothing. However, when it adorns the neck of a clear beer bottle, the lime says Corona! Add a tropical beach and it screams!

Of course, individual signals can contribute to the collective, and categorical signals can contribute to the specific. Be they specific or categorical, individual or collective, not all brand signals are created intentionally. Many are associated with or equated to the brand over time. These signals are of no less value than those which are developed intentionally by the brand owner. The Corona lime ritual was not created by Corona, but rather a California bartender who, in 1981, made a bet with his buddy that he could start a trend. Corona might not have started the lime ritual, they may not own it legally, but they benefit from this well know brand signal.

Your own brand likely has signals that extend beyond its name and logo. By identifying and refining these signals, your brand can begin to own these mental cues to build a more engaging brand experience with your audience.

—Mark Gallagher, Brand Expressionist® at Blackcoffee®. 

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

A lot can be learned from the easily searched trademark registrations existing on the United States Patent and Trademark Office's online database. For example, Examining Attorneys at the USPTO will refuse registration based on prior confusingly similar registered marks, so responsible trademark owners will conduct the necessary searching and due diligence prior to adoption and first use. In addition, because searching the USPTO's database can yield readily available evidence on a number of substantive issues important to trademark types and brand owners, third-party trademark registrations are a very tempting tool to use to try to prove a point.

As frustrating as it can be to trademark types and the brand owners they represent, third-party registrations cannot be used as legal precedent to try and compel a certain result. Such attempts easily are rebuffed at the USPTO since each application must be decided on its own merits and one Examining Attorney is not bound by the "mistakes" that may have been made by other Examining Attorneys at the USPTO. As a result, although consistency is a goal at the USPTO, it can be rather elusive at times. Having said that, third-party trademark registration evidence can have evidentiary value, if used properly, and the valid and acceptable use of third-party registration evidence has grown over time.

Third-party registrations have been considered relevant and probative in establishing a number of different and important trademark issues, including at least:

1. The likely meaning of a mark to consumers. Tektronix, Inc. v. Daktronics, Inc., 534 F.2d 915 (CCPA 1976). 
2. That goods or services are of a type that consumers may believe emanate from a single source. In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co., 29 USPQ2d 1783, 1785 (TTAB 1993).
3. The likely meaning of a mark to consumers, i.e., whether it is merely descriptive or suggestive. Plus Products v. Star-Kist Foods, Inc., 220 USPQ 541 (TTAB 1983).
4. That a mark is relatively weak and that consumers will rely on other matter to distinguish between marks. Palm Bay Imports, Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369 (CAFC 2005).
5. The existence of a relevant industry practice. Stuart Spector Designs, Ltd. et al. v. Fender Musical Instrument Corporation, 2009 WL 804142 (TTAB March 25, 2009) (finding the third-party registrations for guitar body designs supported the applicant's position that the USPTO recognizes guitar body designs as capable of indicating source and the industry's practice of registering guitar body designs); In re The Black & Decker Corp., 81 USPQ2d 1841 (TTAB 2006) (finding industry practice to use key head design as source indicator).

A couple of days ago I posted about a trademark specimen case, one where I was hoping the TTAB would expand the valid use of third-party registration evidence, but unfortunately, the TTAB did not acknowledge or address the third-party trademark registration evidence that was submitted (along with the specimens of use supporting those standard character word-only trademark registrations). Perhaps someone else can benefit from these thoughts in arguing for additional expanded use of third-party registrations in their trademark registration cases.

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

Worries about having a white Christmas in Minneapolis and elsewhere have been quiet this year. Thus far, we have spent far more than our typical time shoveling some especially heavy wet snow this holiday season, but don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining.

I do have snow on my mind, however, because each time I think we might be done shoveling, we look out the window and there is more to tackle. So, with each trip outside over the last couple of days, I'm feeling less and less like the ambitious viking dude shown above. 

Who is he anyway?

Might the artwork be a promotion for the Minnesota Vikings and their foreshadowing of the Super Bowl spoils they hope to bring home during the 2009 football post season?

Might it be some action artwork featuring a well-known entertainer and educator known as Ragnar, a/k/a Joseph Juranitch?

(For a clever ESPN Sports Center commercial featuring Ragnar and Adrian Peterson, enjoy here).

Nope, the entire image is a non-verbal non-traditional federally-registered service mark, covering the "transportation of goods by ground transportation," and it apparently is owned by a gentleman named Eduardo Gonzalez, doing business as Freezman Transport, based in, of all places, La Jolla, California:

So, here's an interesting question to ponder over the holidays, can a non-verbal service mark be refused registration as primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive? Here's the three part test: (1) The primary significance of the mark is a generally known geographic location; (2) the consuming public is likely to believe the place identified by the mark indicates the origin of the goods or services when, in fact, they do not come from that place; and (3) the misrepresentation was a material factor in the consumer's decision.

Know of any non-verbal marks that meet this test? If so, they are unregistrable even if acquired distinctiveness can be shown, since no secondary meaning or Section 2(f) evidence will save such a barred mark under Section 2(e)(3) of the Lanham Act.

A while back, John Welch over at the TTABlog discussed some interesting applications of the test for primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive marks (albeit with some verbal mark examples), here and here.

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

To sports fans of this university, December has been a big month because their beloved team finished the 2009 regular football season undefeated (13-0) once again, winning yet another post-season BCS bowl game bid. Next month will be even bigger news if their WAC team happens to defeat TCU in the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl. To trademark types, however, the biggest news of all is what this university was able to accomplish last month at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

You might be surprised to learn (I was) that the above image is the drawing associated with the single color trademark ("the mark consists of the color blue used on the artificial turf in the stadium") that this university was able to federally register in connection with: "Entertainment services, namely, the presentation of intercollegiate sporting events and sports exhibitions rendered in a stadium, and through the media of radio and television broadcasts and the global communications network." Hat tip to Brad Frazer of the Hawley Troxell firm, in Boise, Idaho.

Quick question, how does one render entertainment services in connection with a single-color trademark through the "media of radio broadcasts"? Does oral reference to the blue turf on the radio constitute use of the mark in commerce?

In any event, the identity of the university in question, is revealed below the jump, and it is, of course:

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

As you may recall from March of this year, we blogged about Kimberly-Clark's novel intent-to-use trademark application for a "sensory, touch mark" in connection with disposable paper hand-towels. Other discussions of sensory, touch marks may be found here. 

In any event, the original description of the claimed Kimberly-Clark trademark was as follows: "The mark consists of a distinctive arrangement of textured alternating dot pattern appearing on the surface of the carton of disposable paper hand-towels. The mark is a sensory, touch mark."

Here is the original drawing (on the left):

Kimberly-Clark now appears to have shifted its approach by amending both the drawing (the new drawing shown above on the right) and the description of the mark to now read: "The mark consists of a configuration of packaging consisting of a design of a distinctive arrangement of soft textured raised alternating large and small dot pattern appearing on the surface of the carton of disposable paper hand-towels. The matter shown in broken lines is not part of the mark and serves only to show the position or placement of the mark."

So, no more reference to this being a "sensory, touch mark" -- now the focus is on a packaging configuration. This amended mark was approved for publication by the Trademark Office as an inherently distinctive trademark, and it was published for opposition just days ago, on December 8, 2009. 

What do you think, is this amendment a material alteration of the originally filed sensory, touch mark? Are the commercial impressions of the original mark and the amended mark essentially the same? Apparently the Examining Attorney concluded they were. Do you agree?

• 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

What do you think, is Overstock.com selling bling with the Fordless blue oval logo?

As you may recall from my post back in September, Ford Motor Company is attempting to register the below shown non-verbal logo as a trademark for a variety of goods in Int'l Class 12:

And, as you may recall from Dan's I See Blue Ovals post back in August, there are far more than a handful of blue oval logos out there besides this one:

The pending Fordless blue oval intent-to-use trademark application recently was examined by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), and on October 23, 2009, the PTO found no substantive bases for refusal, but instead it issued an initial refusal noting only a couple of purely procedural or technical deficiencies, concerning the wording in the lengthy description of goods and the need for Ford to submit a claim of ownership to some related registrations (here, here, and here).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• 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

For the record, I love music, lots of different artists and musical styles: Bob Dylan to Aerosmith, Otis Redding to Elvis, Montgomery Gentry to Santana, Climax Blues Band to Bill Withers, Jack Johnson to Jamey Johnson, Michael Jackson to Alan Jackson, James Taylor to Taylor Swift, Pink Floyd to Wallflowers, Pat Benatar to Pat Green, Glen Campbell to Stevie Wonder, Beatles to Terri Clark, Cat Stevens to B52's, Cranberries to Trace Adkins, Eagles to Nickelback, Supertramp to Troggs, Dido to Donovan, Huey Lewis to Heidi Newfield, Madonna to Boz Scaggs, The Who to Keith Urban, Kellie Pickler to U2, War to Bangles, Lorie Line to Bob Seger, Frank Sinatra to Spyro Gyra, Men at Work to Fourplay, Rolling Stones to Tracy Chapman, Enya to Ray Charles, Police to Queen, Bee Gees to Kenny G, Sade to Steely Dan, Sugarland to Sugarloaf, Barry White to Howard Jones, George Michael to Counting Crows, among many, many, many others, and even Johann Pachelbel's Canon in D Major, by almost any orchestra.

OK, for any armchair musical psychiatrists out there, keep your thoughts to yourself, to the extent you can discern any common thread through each and every one of the above artists (besides my personal appreciation for each). Recognizing musical taste is a rather personal thing, I simply like to think "I know it when I hear it," it's kind of like my auditory version of former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's famous visual test of obscenity, where he asserted "I know it when I see it."

Anyway, several years ago no country singers would have made the list above. In fact, I used to say that country was the only kind of music I couldn't enjoy, and I grew up in Iowa City, Iowa, smack dab in the middle of the heartland, of all places. Nowadays, rap and hip hop are probably the musical genres I can't seem to appreciate, unless the tune has a little twang or some y'all to it, e.g., Colt Ford style. One of the things that has drawn me to enjoying country music in recent years is the richness of multiple relevant brand mentions by so many different artists within the genre. Obviously, there is more too it than that for me, since I haven't been able to embrace hip hop, a genre with clearly way over-the-top brand references.

Now, being a trademark type, it didn't go unnoticed by me that much earlier artists in other genres have included brand mentions in their music lyrics from time to time (e.g., Elton John's "Chevy" reference in "Crocodile Rock"; Don Henly's "Wayfarers" reference in "Boys of Summer"; The Beatles' "Coca-Cola" reference in "Come Together"; The Beach Boys' "T-Bird" reference in "Fun, Fun, Fun"; and Jim Croce's "Continental" and "El Dorado" references in "Bad Bad Leroy Brown"), so the idea of including brands within music lyrics is not new and may not even have originated in the country music genre, but it seems to me that the writers and artists in Nashville have cranked the brand mentions up a couple of notches in recent years, to my great pleasure and enjoyment (assuming these brand mentions aren't paid placements).

Take, for example, the lyrics for Eric Church's "Love Your Love the Most," with a total of six brand references: three in one verse, and two in one line (Faulkner, Redman, Nascar, George Strait, Jack D, and Coke). By the way, do you think it is safe to assume that Mr. Church's "Jack D" reference is to Jack Daniels, and not some other lesser known "Jack D" whiskey like Jack Davis, or perhaps some obscure reference to Jack'd Up Java?

Seriously, examples of other country music artists employing multiple brand mentions in song lyrics include Jason Michael Carroll's three brand mentions in "Where I'm From" (Armani, Ford, and indirectly John Deere (green tractor reference), Craig Morgan's three brand mentions in "International Harvester" (International Harvester, 4-H, and FFA), Rodney Atkins' three brand mentions in "Watching You" (Happy Meal, Scooby-Doo, and Superman), and Craig Morgan's six brand mentions in "Redneck Yacht Club" (Johnson, Mercury, Evinrude, Astroturf, Bass Tracker, and Bayliner).

What does all this mean for trademark types, marketers, and brand owners? You'll have to stay tuned for Part II in this series on Brand Mentions in Music Lyrics.

In the meantime, any thoughts on what song contains the most different brand references, can you top six? 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (6)
• 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 we hit the ides of November, we are nearing the proverbial calm before the storm of the holidays. What you probably do not know is that we are but two, short days away from a little-known holiday before the Holidays, one that celebrates the preparation for the Holidays. This, of course, could only be National Bundt Day.

The first National Bundt Day was declared in 2006, the 60^th Anniversary of the founding of the company that is the source of the Bundt® pan: Nordic Ware. This family-owned company, legally incorporated as Northland Aluminum Products, Inc., is located on the outskirts of our own Minneapolis, Minnesota, and specializes in aluminum and other cookware. Nordic Ware has sold more than 60 million Bundt® pans, estimated to be enough to be in two out of three U.S. households. According to Nordic Ware, the word BUNDT, a coined term and registered trademark for cake pans, is derived from the German word “bund,” which means “a gathering of people.” Adding to the uniqueness of Nordic Ware, the company still manufactures in the United States (in Minneapolis), and openly states, "in the marketplace struggle between price and quality, quality wins every time."  Amen. 

Although Nordic Ware makes Bundt® pans in numerous shapes and sizes, and has even registered the shape of one of its unique pans as a trademark, it doesn’t appear that Nordic Ware has sought to register its “original” shape Bundt® pan as a trademark, but it probably could:

Indeed, the Bundt is iconic and enjoyed by peoples of all cultures and ethnicities.

For a brief third-party history of the Bundt® pan and a review of Bundt buying and baking, click here.

Happy baking!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• 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

The October/November issue of Brand Packaging magazine just hit the streets and I'm deeply honored to say that my piece entitled "A Trademark Touch: Strategies for Owning and Protecting Touchmarks" is this issue's "cover story" (minus the skull and crossbones).

The digital version can be read here. I hope you find it eye-opening in a tactile kind of way.

By the way, I'd love some feedback on it.

What is your favorite touchmark anyway?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• 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

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

Have you ever seen a bottle with a top that resembles this image?  Do you associate it with a single source?  Do you associate it with a particular product?  If so, which source or product?  Would you think that the product pictured below comes from the same source?

    How about this one? 

These are the basic facts in a lawsuit brought last month by Maker's Mark Distillery against Jose Cuervo International and related entities.  Maker's Mark owns a federal trademark registration (more than one, actually) on its wax seal for use in connection with whiskey.  Jose Cuervo sells the bottles pictured above as part of its Jose Cuervo Reserva de la Familia line of tequilas.  While news outlets reported this new case last month, and indeed a new case was filed then, these two parties have been in litigation since 2003 on the same issues.  In the 2003 suit, the Cuervo parties have counterclaimed to cancel the Maker's Mark trademark registration, in part on the basis that the wax seal is functional. The parties are currently briefing a motion for summary judgment brought by the Cuervo parties, so there may be a disposition within the next several months.

It is not presently clear to me how the two lawsuits are related.  In any event, these suits, if tried to published decisions, will add a helpful data point to the body of non-traditional trademark law.  We'll keep you posted.

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

Have you ever experienced or observed marketing styles that might be fairly described as high-octane, fast-paced, or perhaps, so hopped-up on Red Bull® or some other energy drink, there is simply no time for meaningful collaboration, much less careful, proactive, strategic thinking or planning? Perhaps a fun, exhilarating experience, but what are the consequences?

If you have, as you might know first hand (or at least imagine), this style can seriously compromise valuable intellectual property rights and protection. You know when the trademark attorney gets the call if this style controls, right? Immediately upon encountering a serious and unfair competitive threat. But in many instances, this will be long after a coherent strategy might have been created, well after packaging is designed and introduced, well after marketing materials are finalized and distributed, long after websites have been launched, and well after all the unknowing, but self-inflicted damage is done. In some cases the resulting damage is manageable and can be repaired, other times it is not, and legal claims that might have been strong and viable suddenly have turned dead-on-arrival.

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

What does this image signify to you?

For full credit, please answer the question before peeking back at Dan's popular post called "I See Blue Ovals."

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

I think Steve once remarked something to the effect that the Internet is employment security for trademark attorneys.  Road tripping is too.  On one such recent occasion, my wife remarked on the similarity of Culver's blue oval signage to Ford's famous blue oval. 

Obviously, there is no issue here from a trademark infringement standpoint.  Culver's is clearly in the fast food business, and Ford is an automotive company.  No, the intrigue for me was how I started seeing blue ovals everywhere!  First was Carrier:

Then I noticed the Nasonex logo on a note on my desk from a promotional notepad:

Then the one that put me over the edge, the one that has now made me believe that there is a proverbial vast right-wing marketing conspiracy to toy subliminally with my latent positive associations with blue ovals:  Malt-o-Meal.

As if this were not enough, Brad, reading over my shoulder, suggested I take a look at American Idol:

Yikes!  What's more, Brad pointed out that Ford is a major sponsor of American Idol!

Joking aside, isn't it kind of interesting that of these examples, several use a light line to help outline the oval?  From a design standpoint, it seems to enhance the overall shape and clarity of the designs that use it.  I have a secret hope that there is some James Burke-esque "Connections" link in the depths of humanity's art history that might explain the blue oval phenomenon.  I wonder how many marketing surveys exist that show positive associations with blue ovals?  Is this just a case of sensitivity on my part to the phenomenon, or could I find similar phenomena with, say, green triangles?

While you lose sleep (or not) over these questions, feel free to pass the time running Internet searches for the words "blue oval" to see which of these blue ovals might claim to be the blue oval.  (Hints here here here here here and here.)

UPDATE:  The hits keep coming:

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (7)
• 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

Hopefully you enjoy riddles. It is late Sunday afternoon, 4:30 pm to be exact. Too early for valet parking at Fogo de Chao, a wonderful Brazilian steakhouse, so you drive two blocks and enter a parking lot with the following sign:

You had a very nice dinner and now you're ready to leave the parking lot at 6:15 pm. Based on the above sign (and contract, by the way), how much do you owe the parking attendant? Instead of humming the Jeopardy thinking music theme song, might I suggest you consider humming the 1970 Five Man Electrical Band tune "Signs" during your calculation. And for any '70s challenged folk, I'll prime the pump for you: "Sign, sign, everywhere a sign, blocking out the scenery, breaking my mind, do this, don't do that, can't you read the sign?"

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

Dan blogged last Friday about obtaining a trademark for Michael Jackson’s famous glove. Another famous person who died that day was iconic Charlie’s Angel Farrah Fawcett. Should or could Farrah have trademarked her famous hairstyle? Women across the world rushed to their hairdressers to obtain the “Farrah Do” or “Farrah Hair.”

Twenty years after Farrah’s famous hairstyle, Jennifer Aniston, as Rachel on Friends, also had women rushing to their hairdressers to emulate her Rachel bob. 

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

In light of the news of Michael Jackson's passing (may he rest in peace), and as we ready for the likely months-long parade of tributes, allow me to make mine early, and then be done.

Despite the corpus of undeniably catchy pop music, standard-setting music videos, and well-recognized dance moves, I submit that Michael Jackson's glove stands out as his most recognizable trademark.  Gossip columnists have called Michael Jackson "The Gloved One," and several of today's news reports are leading with references to his glove and featuring photos of it.  Although it appears that the glove was never a federally registered trademark -- and it easily could have been -- it was undoubtedly a highly distinctive common law non-traditional trademark.  In non-legalese:  If you saw the glove, you knew the entertainer to be Michael Jackson. 

Here is a slightly humorous jab at "the glove" being, like performer that wore it, larger than life:

This is but one of many videos made as a result of the White Glove Tracking Project -- a fascinating endeavor by a bunch of people with way too much time on their hands. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• 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

Kimberly-Clark® is no stranger to securing federal registrations for its various non-traditional trademarks. No doubt, these unconventional trademark assets are of great commercial value and an important part of K-C's evolving business strategy and intellectual property portfolio.

My previous post about the oval-shaped facial tissue container K-C was able to federally register in November 2007 is linked here. That post also discussed their current non-traditional trademark application covering a "textured alternating dot pattern appearing on the surface of the carton of disposable paper hand-towels." By way of update, it was initially refused registration in April, but the application remains pending, as can be seen here, with no response due until October 2009.

Kimberly-Clark® has non-traditional, single color trademarks too:  

In fact, I recently came across a pair of their federal trademark registrations for "the color purple," one obtained in 2002 and the other in 2006. The differences in the description of goods between these two "color purple" registrations help make a point that is quite important to both marketing and trademark types, namely, the importance of keeping registered trademark scope current and consistent with the underlying and evolving business scope.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• 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

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

Full disclosure: I am a huge fan of Method products. They are non-toxic, smell good, they come in the kind of stylish product packaging that you can display on any countertop, and they work. So it should come to no surprise that Method is a brand with fans. What other manufacturer of toilet bowl cleaner can you think of that has a blog not just entirely devoted to it, but uses the word “lust” to describe such devotion?

Last month, ANA Advertiser On-Line Magazine featured a great interview with co-founder and Chief Brand Architect of Method, Eric Ryan, which may explain some of the adoration. Although formed during a recession and competing with companies such as Clorox, Procter & Gamble, and S.C. Johnson for shelf space, Method enjoys high (and growing) awareness among consumers. Mr. Ryan explains that Method competes with the Goliaths in its industry by “shift[ing] the conversation” – the branding conversation. Smaller, private companies (like Method) simply don’t have the budget or the longevity to stand up to long-established brands on those brands’ terms. So instead of talking the talk of its competitors, much of which goes to the work that their products do or don’t do, Method “shifts the conversation,” by promoting the non-toxic qualities, pleasant fragrances and cool designs that make up the overall Method design aesthetic.

In short, Method competes by not competing in the traditional sense, but by building brand awareness through non-traditional trademarks, previously blogged about on this blog, by associating stylish sights and smells with its products. It just goes to show that brand loyalty isn’t necessarily dependent on brawn and budget. Chalk one up for the little guys.

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

Airbrushing is a familiar technique among advertisers looking to avoid the risk of trademark infringement or dilution liability when branded props of others appear and would otherwise be recognizable. It can work well when removing a traditional visual trademark, i.e., a logo or word mark, because there can be no likelihood of confusion with (or dilution of) a visual mark when the claimed mark cannot be seen. 

But what about when a branded prop dominates the ad or the identifiable trademark is another's product container or package, a single color, trade dress, or perhaps the shape or configuration of the product or prop itself? What is critical for advertisers to appreciate is that when non-traditional trademarks are the subject of the ad and concern, the airbrush and any digital manipulation are less helpful and may be entirely ineffective in erasing trademark liability.

By way of a hypothetical example in the non-alcoholic beverage world, airbrushing the Coca-Cola word mark may not be sufficient to avoid liability, so long as the distinctive Coca-Cola bottle is left intact, say, in a Chevrolet ad. Likewise, by way of another hypothetical example, this time in the alcoholic beverage world, presumably the current owner of the Schlitz brand would object to another's commercial use of its distinctive Schlitz label even if the Schlitz word mark was airbrushed or otherwise removed.

Now, for a not so hypothetical example concerning Schlitz' ads, continue reading after the jump.

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

During tough economic times, we all look for places to cut costs. For anyone wondering whether it is wise to cut corners on due diligence when launching a new brand or product name, consider the consequences by reading a short piece I wrote for Create Magazine a couple of years ago, here. Nothing has changed, this is still money very well spent.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• 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

Do you recognize this logo?

Does it make you hungry?  Ok, maybe not.

Let’s try some word associations instead.  I’ll list some words, and you just shout out the first thing that comes to mind for each one:

CHEWNIVERSITY

CHOMPENSATION

SATISFLYING

ANTIHUNGERESTABLISHMENTARIANISM

How’d you do?  The answer to this mystery is after the jump . . .

• 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

There is certainly a lot of buzz in the news these days about “Stimulus Packages” and how they might be utilized around the globe to spur economic growth and permit us all to resume our active pursuit of prosperity. Let us not forget that a brand (and the underlying trademarks that provide for the legal protection of the brand) is a rather potent “Stimulus Package” in its own right. Indeed, brands and trademarks are discrete packages of information that can stimulate any of the five senses to make a purchasing decision and spur economic growth for the brand owner and any licensees. Let us also not forget that there is much more to a brand than a name:

“By developing branding tactics that extend beyond mere naming and logo design, creatives who collaborate early with competent trademark counsel can assist their clients in finding new ways to accomplish the goal of differentiation. The non-traditional brands of tomorrow will only be limited by the creativity of those involved in the process. Who will be the first to brand eyeglasses by the taste of the tip that rests above the ear. Who will be the first to brand ballpoint pens by the taste of the cap?”

Perhaps now is the perfect time to follow Stevie Wonder’s example in developing and exploiting brands and trademarks that "touch" much more than our senses of sight and sound.

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