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

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

John Welch, over at the TTABlog, reported on a recent trademark specimen of use case (pdf here); one near and dear to my heart, since I represented the Applicant seeking to register the composite word-only mark DELI EXPRESS SAN LUIS for sweet rolls. At issue in the case was whether the product label specimen (appearing below) shows use of the DELI EXPRESS SAN LUIS word-only mark as set forth in the standard character drawing of the trademark application:

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), in what it admitted to be a "necessarily subjective" analysis, examined the product label specimen -- and on that basis alone -- concluded it does not show use of the claimed DELI EXPRESS SAN LUIS mark:

Here, we agree with the examining attorney that the specimen depicts the two literal portions DELI EXPRESS and SAN LUIS in such a manner that consumers would not perceive them as constituting a single composite mark. First, the DELI EXPRESS portion is not only in a different font but is contained within a yellow-background, and then a larger red background, separated from the remainder of the packaging design by a black bar outlining the top left corner of the package. The other literal portion, SAN LUIS, is outside of that border area and is further separated by a fanciful triangle design and placed upon a green background. The term CONCHA appears below these two elements in a lighter green box. Taken together, we find that the impression left by this specimen is that the two elements, DELI EXPRESS and SAN LUIS, are two separate trademarks rather than the single mark shown on the drawing page (emphasis added).

I respectfully submit that these kinds of determinations -- especially since they are admittedly and "necessarily subjective" -- are not binary, either-or propositions. For example, it is entirely possible for a single specimen to show two trademarks that function as separate individual trademarks and also function together in the same specimen as a unitary word-only composite mark (see third-party registration examples below the jump).

Here, it seems to me, that the specimen in question shows multiple word-only marks (among others too, when designs and stylization is considered), including DELI EXPRESS, SAN LUIS, and the composite of those words, DELI EXPRESS SAN LUIS. Indeed, if a consumer were shown the product label and asked what brand of concha or sweet roll this is, it would be entirely reasonable and appropriate to answer: DELI EXPRESS SAN LUIS. If so, how can it be that the specimen does not show use of the claimed mark?

Given that the drawing shows the mark sought to be registered by applicant (TMEP 807; 37 CFR 2.52), given that applicants enjoy some latitude in choosing the mark to register and include in the drawing (TMEP 807.12(d)), given that the main purpose of the drawing is to provide notice of the nature of the mark sought to be registered (TMEP 807), given that the mark shown in a standard character word-only drawing need not appear on the specimen in the same font, style, size, or color (TMEP 807.03(e)), given that the USPTO actually encourages applicants to use standard character drawings (TMEP 807.04(b)), given that a standard character drawing is a quick and efficient way of showing the essence of a verbal mark (TMEP 807.04(b)), and given the "necessarily subjective" nature of the determination, I submit that the appropriate test for determining whether the specimen shows use of the verbal, word-only mark claimed in the standard character drawing, is whether it would be reasonable for consumers to request applicant's product by the claimed trademark, given what actually appears on the specimen.

In other words, how might consumers request applicant's sweet roll product? Again, I submit it is entirely reasonable that consumers who have seen the product label would request the product by asking for a "DELI EXPRESS SAN LUIS concha or sweet roll." Now, while they might also request a "DELI EXPRESS" concha or sweet roll, or perhaps a SAN LUIS concha or sweet roll, the most complete, accurate, and precise way to request the product would be to ask for a "DELI EXPRESS SAN LUIS" brand concha or sweet roll, and also thereby treat the words as a unitary composite mark, because:

1. The DELI EXPRESS house brand (and primary brand) and the SAN LUIS secondary or sub-brand are the only brands and word-marks on the entire label;
2. They appear proximate to one another, side-by-side on the same horizontal plane, at the top of the label, for easy, conventional reading from left to right;
3. They form the dominant portion of the label since the design elements can't be spoken;
4. The DELI EXPRESS phrase appears in solid black lettering on a yellow-background, and the SAN LUIS phrase has a black-outlined border and it stems from a triangle design element matching the same yellow-background carrying the DELI EXPRESS phrase;
5. There is no requirement to include generic words as part of the claimed mark, i.e., concha or sweet roll;
6. Consumers familiar with applicant's products are accustomed to similar label formats where the DELI EXPRESS house brand is proximately positioned with other sub-brands like SUPER MEGA, SNACKERS, COFFEES OF THE WORLD, and SUB SELECTS, to form federally-registered word-only standard character trademarks: DELI EXPRESS SUPER MEGA, DELI EXPRESS SNACKERS, DELI EXPRESS COFFEES OF THE WORLD, and DELI EXPRESS SUB SELECTS; and
7. Consumers of packaged food products have been conditioned to perceive house marks and secondary marks as not only having separate trademark significance from each other, but also significance together, in the same specimen, even when different colors, styles and fonts may be used for each or portions of each, and even when other matter or wording may appear between them(see third-party registration evidence below the jump).

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

In November, I wrote about how Gatorade’s 2009 re-branding as G has been a complete failure. G was an ill-conceived approach to slowing sales in 2007 and 2008. It damaged brand equity, confused consumers and didn’t reverse the trend of falling unit sales.

In the final paragraph of my last blog, I noted that PepsiCo CEO Indra Nooyi said the company is planning a “massive Gatorade transformation” for 2010. I recommended that Gatorade should follow the model of Coca-Cola when they decided to retire New Coke. By doing this, Coca-Cola admitted their mistake and moved on by hitting the reset button on their brand.

Initial details of PepsiCo’s 2010 “massive Gatorade transformation” have been made publicly known here, here and here. Gatorade’s brand strategy for 2010 seems mediocre. Although they are making some positive changes, other moves indicate that they still don’t understand how to successfully market their brand.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• 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

Schering-Plough Healthcare, owner of the MiraLAX brand -- the top-selling OTC oral laxative ($360 Million in OTC sales since launching in February 2007) -- has pulled out all of the available stops and then some, in a pre-Thanksgiving Day federal district court action brought in the District of Delaware, asserting a variety of intellectual property and unfair competition claims under both federal and state law. Bloomberg.com's report on the case from yesterday is here. In addition, here is a link to the Complaint, with Exhibits A, B, and C.

As is typical when the manufacturer of a national brand wants to stop what it perceives as unfair retail store brand competition, Schering-Plough brought suit not against either of its retail customers Kroger or CVS -- despite both being mentioned in the complaint -- instead, it sued Perrigo the private label manufacturer who provided the competitive products bearing those retailers' well-known, if not famous store brand names.

Perrigo says it is "the world's largest manufacturer of OTC pharmaceutical products for the store brand market." Here is how Perrigo describes its business model:

The Perrigo Company manufactures products that compare to national brand products such as Tylenol^®, Advil^® or ONE-A-DAY^®. For example, Tylenol^® has acetaminophen as an active ingredient and is available in a store's analgesic (pain relief) section. Store brand acetaminophen is located right next to the national brand acetaminophen, offering the same active ingredient (acetaminophen) and the same relief.

Store brands and national brand products are both manufactured to meet or exceed quality standards set by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Store brand products are sold by retail stores under their own labels and compete with nationally advertised brands. All Perrigo products meet or exceed quality standards set by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Store brand OTC and nutritional products have saved consumers many millions of dollars in health-care costs over the past six years.

Although the national brand owner's strategy of not suing its retail customer directly may be attractive from a business relations perspective, unless the case is promptly resolved on an amicable basis, it will be hard to avoid having representatives of Kroger, CVS, and other retail customers of Schering-Plough, put on the "hot seat" in discovery depositions to determine who created, controlled, and/or approved the "look and feel" of the store brand packaging. It remains to be seen how this strategy will play out here for Schering-Plough.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under Consideration's Brand New Blog has on two recent occasions commented about the trend in using white as the color for product packaging of consumable goods. Wal-Mart was the first to use this color packaging for its private label brand and the European community appears to be following suit. Using a white background has its marketing appeal, but consumers are unlikely to rely on the color white to distinguish between two different consumable goods. Additionally, it is unlikely that the user of a white background will be able to obtain a federal trademark registration for this color. However, product packaging backgrounds can be another way for companies to distinguish their products from their competitors, and it is possible to obtain a federal trademark registration for the product packaging background.

Background designs can be registered as trademarks even if they are to an extent ornamental and aesthetically pleasing. The key is whether a background design creates a commercial impression separate and apart from the other elements that appear on the product packaging. If the background design creates a separate commercial impression, it can be registered as a trademark. In fact, a background design can be inherently distinctive. In other words, consumers can immediately rely on the background design to distinguish between two sources of goods.

Unless business reasons dictate using an ordinary background, why waste an opportunity to connect with your consumer. Therefore, keep in mind that the background design of your product packaging can function as a trademark and help you further distinguish your goods from those of your competitors.

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

Before the emergence of the Internet, there were two major conventional ways of doing intellectual property consumer surveys — mall intercept surveys and telephone surveys.   Mall intercepts work best for branded, consumer products where there is a visual element to be tested. They are moderately expensive and require some incentive. Telephone interviews are good for brand names, genericness studies or other types of research where the respondent does not need to view a visual. Most telephone research requires no incentives.

The Internet, in theory, combines the best of both worlds. Internet surveys not only permit the asking of verbal questions and recording verbatim answers, they also permit transmission of visual images such as products, labels, logos and packaging. Internet technology also permits sound transmission. Transmission costs are minimal with an e-mail blast of 5,000 names costing about $800 or $160 per thousand. (Typical mall costs are $30-$40 per interview). Unfortunately, there is no telephone book for e-mail addresses, and in order to use this medium you have to hook into a vendor that has large opt-in consumer panel data bases. By using opt-in panels, you will bypass all the SPAM filers and anti-SPAM on-line watchdogs. Moreover, you have an instant, real-time tabulation process.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• 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

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

 While salivating over the most recent installment to the Tiger Woods Video Game Franchise, Tiger Woods PGA Tour 10, my mind began to wander towards product placement. I suppose it is a natural extension that a game which allows players to play “real” courses would logically allow players to purchase “real” apparel and equipment with tournament winnings.

Now, product placement, generally, and product placement in video games, specifically, are not new concepts. However, the way in which companies are able to target and control their message through placement is becoming increasingly sophisticated. For example, we have already evolved from movie placement and early video game placement, where the interaction between the consumer and the brand was largely just a passive viewing, to highly interactive placement, such as an the Tiger Woods’ series, where the player is able to interact with the brand by playing with the branded equipment.

This type of product placement represents yet another example of how virtual worlds can affect real world brands. (I blogged earlier on virtual infringement here.) The case with Tiger Woods Golf is particularly compelling because not only are the products “placed” in the game, they also have distinct performance characteristics which could color the players perception of the actual brand. Players could be developing opinions about the effectiveness of gloves, shafts, grips, irons, wedges, drivers, putters, balls, shoes, etc. without ever having seen the real world item. This could be affecting their opinions of major brands such as Nike, Callaway, Taylor Made, Titleist, Cleveland, and Odyssey (among others).  Moreover, the stakes are rising with the fact that there is likely significant overlap between Tiger Woods golfers and real golfers.

I guess the moral, simply stated, is that virtual space = opportunity.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• 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

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

My wife and I recently received a gift of chocolate, called the Marital Bliss Bar, from Bloomsberry & Co.  The packaging is quite humorous:

Bloomsberry's other chocolates are also in generally humorous packages, with some bordering on edgy, even racy -- all can be viewed at its website. 

Humor in marketing and product packaging carries some risk, because taste in humor is like taste in most everything else -- it will vary from person to person.  For instance, this image of a bull does not make me want to dine at the advertised steakhouse, but I could imagine the pictured billboard being an effective ad for some audiences.  (And while I will concede that my criticism may generate more impressions for the ad, isn't it a bit ironic that high quality beef comes from steers, not bulls?)

This exercise leads me to conclude that I am likely a member of the former company's target market, but not the latter's.  Which one are you in?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• 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

As you may recall, three weeks ago, I posted about what appeared to be the makings of a "Red, Hot, Chip Fight" between Old Vienna and Barrel O'Fun Snack Foods, over Barrel O'Fun's use of "Red Hot Ripple" and other elements of trade dress claimed by Old Vienna (see here for my prior post and a side-by-side comparison of the potato chip bags).

As you may also recall, I invited you to "stay tuned" to "see how this fight progresses."

Folks, this one didn't even last the first round, almost as soon as the opening bell sounded, the case was voluntarily dismissed by Barrel O'Fun before Old Vienna's answer was due.  Here is a copy of the Order of Dismissal.

I'm guessing the parties worked something out to their "mutual satisfaction" -- if anyone knows for sure, ring the bell, please.

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

Building a packaging brand seems simple at the outset. The only problem is you have to understand what the consumer wants and expects in their product packaging. That consumer is on the move too. They are time crunched, overworked and overwhelmed with information and even worse you have only 2.6 seconds to convince them to pick up your product for a closer look. So how can you "connect your message" with the consumer?

The package has an immense role to play. Besides transporting, protecting and keeping your product secure consider what other things the package is doing simultaneously: educating about what's inside or how to use the product, helping the consumer to make an informed purchasing decision, making it convenient and easier for the customer to use, providing a sense product integrity and trust in your brand. Heard enough? Can your package meet these criteria?

It's the emotional connection that builds today's brands. How you make that connection is what separates successful brands from those that fail to make the grade. The package needs to "engage" the consumer by clearly stating value, benefits and reasons why a consumer should make the purchase. How will purchasing the product make someone's life easier? How easy or convenient is it to use? How does it mesh with the consumer’s lifestyle? And most importantly, what's in it for the consumer once they make the purchase?

So what constitutes compelling packaging brand? How "connected" are you to your consumer? Here are a few emotional descriptors that your packaging must convey. Does your packaging Engage, Evoke, and Engross the consumer?

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

Minneapolis is the chosen venue for a brand new legal food fight, one involving potato chips.

Putting aside for the moment that the proper test of trademark infringement is not based on a side by side comparison of products (unless, of course, they are encountered that way in the real world, as opposed to the court room) because consumers are believed to have imperfect recollections of the details of brands and marks, what do you think about the allegation of likely confusion between the two packages shown below?

Ding, ding, ding. Ladies and gentlemen, in the white bag, standing in the right corner, sporting the Old Vienna® brand, and the federally-registered Red Hot Riplets® mark (disclaiming only the term “Hot”), is the fighter claiming infringement. In the red-brick bag, standing in the left corner, sporting the Engine Co. 51 brand, and the words Red Hot Ripple, is the “fire” fighter claiming it has done nothing wrong, and feels so strongly, it wants to prove so in court.

To read the spicy cease and desist letters from Old Vienna® that triggered the lawsuit, see here.

To read a copy of the federal complaint filed in court by Barrel O’Fun Snack Foods, see here.

To see how this fight progresses, stay tuned here on DuetsBlog.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (5)
• 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

French customs agents seized 10 tons of counterfeit chocolate bonbons. According to the French customs office, the chocolates were low-quality copycats of the Italian-made Ferrero Rochers. Popular in the U.S. as well as Europe, Ferrero Rochers candies are known for nestling in elegant, individual gold foil wrappers and then inside jewel-shaped clear boxes.

The French seizure of the chocolates underscores the importance of federal trademark registration for U.S. businesses. Obtaining a federal trademark registration enables business owners to work with U.S. Customs to stop the importation of counterfeit goods into the United States and, in many cases, to have the goods destroyed. (Somewhat sadly, this is just what the French customs office did to the 10 tons of chocolate!)

Once upon a time, counterfeiters focused on producing fake luxury goods, such as perfumes and handbags. The French customs office, however, stated that the recent trend shows counterfeiters moving into more pedestrian consumer goods, such as food, medicine and car parts. As a result, businesses both large and small may be targets for counterfeiters from abroad. While obtaining a federal trademark registration won’t necessarily prevent counterfeiters from trying to pass their goods off under a trademark registrant's mark, it may be the best protection in preventing counterfeiters from getting away with their schemes and in deterring them from future attempts.

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