Duets Blog : Creativity and the Law: DuetsBlog

You may recall the Gatorade v. Powerade false advertising lawsuit filed by a Pepsico entity (Stokely-Van Camp, Inc.) against rival The Coca-Cola Company back in April, discussed here (with a copy of the complaint).

You also may recall how G scored an F in the courtroom, back in August, losing a hotly contested motion for preliminary injunctive relief, discussed here.

So, I guess it was only a matter of time before G decided the case wasn't worth breaking a sweat over any longer.

Interestingly, the Stipulation and Order ending the case, has the owner of the Gatorade brand dismissing with prejudice (meaning they can never be reasserted) all claims it had asserted in the lawsuit against Powerade brand owner Coca-Cola. 

It shows Coca-Cola only dismissing with prejudice its affirmative defenses and counterclaim, "insofar as they specifically address [Gatorade's] marketing, labeling, advertising and/or promotional claims concerning the inclusion of calcium and/or magnesium in Gatorade Endurance Formula." All other defenses and claims asserted by Coca-Cola were dismissed without prejudice (meaning they are not barred from being reasserted in the future).

Given this unequal treatment in the settlement, it would appear that Gatorade was more anxious to end the case than Powerade.

Recalling that Gatorade and Powerade battled in court over advertising claims back in 2006, any predictions on how long until these two sports drink brand rivals slug it out again in court?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gatorade’s efforts to re-brand as “G” have been a dismal failure. It seems as if the brand management staff at Gatorade consumed a few too many cold beverages while making this decision, and I’m not referring to refrigerated Gatorades.

The history of the G re-brand has its roots in 2007. Unit sales were flat in 2007 compared with 2006, after three years of double digit growth, according to market research firm Information Resources Inc (IRI). More poor results followed in 2008 despite product innovations and brand revitalization efforts (here and here).  In January 2009, Gatorade started the G re-brand. The G re-brand has done nothing to improve Gatorade’s bottom line. In fact, it has harmed the bottom line.

The decision to modify a brand name should not be taken lightly. A brand name communicates the essence of the brand to consumers. According to Rick Baer, Professor of Marketing at Thunderbird School of Global Management and former Global Brand Manager with Colgate-Palmolive and Dial Corporation, a brand name “should conjure up all the associations and images you want for your brand”. Does G accomplish that? The answer is a resounding no.

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

The single-letter branding and trademark truncation trend continues.

Can you name the retailer selling online gift cards sent by e-mail, using no other identification besides the li'l "a" shown here?

Does this li'l "a" logo with a radish inside help?

How about these, do they help?  

Well, just so you know, it's not this retailer: 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (29)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

My recent family road trip through the heartland had me spending more time than usual pumping gas and shopping in convenience stores, so a few chewing gum brands "gone single letter" caught my eye. As you may recall, I already have reported on Single Letter Envy in Hotel Branding. Well, it appears that the quest for single or one-letter brands is not limited to the hospitality industry (let alone others I'm sure to write about in the future), but has "stretched" to the confectionery industry too.

Turns out, both single letter gum brands that caught my eye are owned by the same company, Cadbury-Adams, part of "Cadbury plc – a leading global confectionery business with the number one or number two position in over 20 of the world's 50 largest confectionery markets."  

Yes, Cadbury Adams has migrated from its long-lasting Bubblicious brand name (having equal style for each letter) to a differently styled beginning B in Bubblicious, and most recently, to the letter B, standing alone, front and center on packaging; fully-truncated to B, as shown above. So, in our ever-abbreviated and truncated branding world, where G now means Gatorade (among other things, as a previously blogged about here), B now apparently means Bubblicious, and S now means Stride (another Cadbury Adams chewing gum brand). Might care be in order to avoid having these two brands appear side by side on store shelves -- at least in the order appearing above -- to avoid some unintended combined meaning of the brands? Perhaps one of the "sticky" consequences of single letter brands is the temptation others may have to spell alternate and unfavorable words and acronyms with them.

As you might imagine, confronting these single letter brands raises a number of questions in need of some answers. For example, are single or one-letter brands for chewing and bubble gum, just the latest flavor trend, or are they here to stay? Why are they currently so appealing, at least to Cadbury Adams? Are there other single letter gum brands in the marketplace, or just B S? Lastly, what are some of the legal ramifications of branding single letters for confectioners?

I'll leave the first two questions for others to chew on -- especially marketers, but I'll take a crack at the second two.

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

RadioShack recently introduced a new name, rebranding its stores "The Shack", which now adorns their retail environment and marketing efforts.

The change was prompted by a desire to update the 88-year-old brand as they transition to mobile phone and wireless products without losing brand equity and mind-share, according to RadioShack. As Dan Neil of the Los Angeles Times mused, "For a company that wants to talk up its expertise in mobile phones, no one seems to have noticed that mobile phones are radios!"

To officially roll out the new, shortened, and supposedly hipper moniker, RadioShack staged "The Shack Summer Netogether" in NY and SF August 6 - 8, broadcasting the event live via "massive laptops" located in Times Square and Justin Herman Plaza, respectively. Video was streamed live on their Facebook page and their redesigned web site.

The current trend to truncate brand names is puzzling. Is this an attempt to beguile the text-message obsessed youth market, where everything is "abrv8d"? Or drive up sales through brand-brevity because we lack long attention spans?

I understand distilling a brand to its essence. Coke and FedEx are good examples, but Pizza Hut and Circuit City are not.

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

              VS.         

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

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

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

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

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

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

Learning at least a few new things each day is a good thing. One of the many things the special women in my life (wife and daughter) taught me today is the meaning of the apparently ubiquitous acronym BFFL: "Best Friends for Life." So, the special men in my life learned something along with me today. I'm not sure what that says about me and my boys?

Anyway, this acronym got me thinking about all the billboard advertising promoting Friends reruns I have encountered over the last several months. It's everywhere. What has struck me about this advertising (besides the sheer volume) is how different it is from the advertising that used to run while the television series was still being filmed and before the syndication of Friends, at least, as I recall. The website for KSTC-TV Channel 45 (based in the Twin Cities) depicts the kind of promotional photograph I recall seeing reguarly while the series was running and pre-syndication:

All six Friends cast members were promoted together as a united group or ensemble of, well, friends, apparently subscribing to the belief that the whole (the program) was greater than the sum of its parts (the cast members). This marketing approach (apparently required by Warner Brothers in the early days of the program) also was consistent with and reminiscent of the solidarity the Friends cast demonstrated during their multiple contract re-negotiations with NBC and Warner Brothers over the years. It is reported that each of the six received $1 Million per episode during the last two seasons, despite the likelihood that each of their relative values most likely was not commercially equivalent.

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

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

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

The makers of Gatorade® apparently like to engage consumers by asking questions. They used to ask, "Is it in You?" The "it" being Gatorade®, of course. Most recently, Gatorade® has embarked on a massive teaser ad campaign -- apparently to re-brand Gatorade® -- asking, "What is G?" -- a question that begs answering in the mysterious ads.

You might be interested to know that trial attorneys are taught not to ask questions -- at trial -- if they don't know the answer. A related and good rule of thumb for marketers might be: Don’t ask a question, if you don't know and -- perhaps more importantly -- if you can’t own the answer.

This may be especially good advice when competitors and other sellers of related products are able to truthfully answer the question posed in their favor, and "steal your thunder," or perhaps "lightning," as the case may be. For example, just picture the makers of these beverage products collectively raising their glasses in answer to Gatorade's bold question "What is G"?

G by G PURE ENERGY already is a federally registered trademark for an energy drink.

G already is a federally registered trademark for bottled water too.

G is a trademark approved for publication by the U.S. Trademark Office for soft drinks.

G3 is a federally registered trademark for fruit juice, not to be confused with Gatorade's G2.

G5 is a federally registered trademark for soft drinks, again, not to be confused with G2.

G JUICE already is a federally registered trademark for sports drinks and other beverages.

G is a proposed trademark allowed by the U.S. Trademark Office for fruit drinks.

G ENERGY MADE FOR WOMEN is a federally registered trademark for fruit drinks.

ELIXIR G is a federally registered trademark for non-alcoholic cocktail mixes.

"EROTIC G-SPOT DRINK" is a federally registered trademark for sports and isotonic drinks.

ENERGIZING GIMME A G has been approved for publication as a trademark for energy drinks.

G GLEUKOS is a federally registered trademark for sports drinks.

Gee Whiz . . . and there are more Gs where these came from, but I think you get the point.

For more of a marketing critique of Gatorade's alpha-truncation-re-brand, continue after the jump.

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

Ok, ok, I get it. My last blog post, The Paradox of Brand Protection, was way too long. Just so you know, I do recognize that we live in a sound bite world, but sometimes the educator and storyteller tangled in my DNA get the worst of me, at least when it comes to brevity.

Brevity is a gift. The federal Court of Appeals judge I worked for in Washington, D.C., years ago, had this gift, among many others. He used to describe those who “go on and on” as having no “terminal facilities.” Those of us who worked for him eagerly awaited the meaningful pearls of wisdom he gifted from time to time.

Brevity is memorable. Out of all the words strangers have uttered to me during my life, I have never lost one brief line from a man (a man I couldn’t pick out of a line-up today, by the way) at the public swimming pool some thirty-five years ago: “You’re going to have in-grown toe nails some day.” He was right, and I have never forgotten those exact words.

Brevity is effective. The GOOGLE® home page is a model of brevity. The ALTAVISTA® landing page has migrated in this direction too. Author and master-blogger Seth Godin makes “every word count” a new art form. His blog posts are models of brevity.

Brevity is hard work. It takes significant time, effort, and knowledge to properly distill complex thoughts and ideas into brief, digestible, and meaningful points. This hard work, however, pays dividends in giving the lasting and important gifts of being memorable and effective.

Brevity can have issues. Sometimes it misleads people into believing things are simple, when it is far from the truth. Other times it creates arguments much later about lacking notices or informed consent. So, while brevity is valuable in engaging attention, any further necessary information should be filled in later, as appropriate.

In the trademark world, brevity has issues too. Perhaps most importantly, brevity is more difficult to own, making it much more valuable when you can. Many different companies might vie to boil down their names to the very same acronym. The same is true for top level domains with a limited number of characters. If you haven’t heard before, there is extraordinary value associated with two character top level domains. Quite simply, the shorter the designation, the more interest and competition there is to use and own it.  

For all of these reasons, and probably more, it seems everyone these days wants to truncate their brand. American Express® is AMEX® (never mind that it isn’t the only one), Federal Express® is FEDEX®. Gatorade® is truncating to G (more about that controversial move later). Even law firms, frequently strangers to brevity, are on the bandwagon too. In case you hadn’t noticed, there is currently no shortage of law firms attempting to truncate their multiple alphabet soup names to a single surname. As you might imagine, this can and does lead to trademark fights, even between law firms.

Food for Thought: Will McDonald's® ever attempt to truncate its famous 71 letter mark? Click here to see their trademark registration.  Repeating it in this post clearly would violate my new quest for brevity.

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