An Increasingly Intense Ellipsis? dot, doT, dOT, DOT!

Posted on November 9, 2009 by Steve Baird

Mark Image

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.

 Boots to trial contactless payment 0

Yes, MasterCard is the owner of this "increasingly intense ellipsis" (my words) mark, for financial services in Int'l Class 36, and smart cards in Int'l Class 9. The non-traditional mark is used in close association with MasterCard's PayPass and Tap & Go marks at the physical -- not virtual -- point of retail sale.

Now, given that a trademark and service mark must (1) identify goods or services, (2) distinguish them from those of others, and (3) indicate the source of the goods or services, do you agree that the "increasingly intense ellipsis" performs each of these critical trademark functions?

If so, does it do so standing alone, without the closely associated MasterCard housemark or PayPass secondary mark?

Isn't this the kind of mark where "look-for advertising" would help consumers know this actually is a trademark instead of simply non-distinctive ornamentation?
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Alpha Watch: Li'l "a" Goes to the "e" Market

Posted on October 12, 2009 by Steve Baird

E-mail a gift card

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? Valentine's Day Winter Hat

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

Assuming you can't wait any longer, here is the answer.

If you were able to wait, and want some more clues, the retailer in question owns a registration for aStore, it acquired this li'l "a" from Alexa Internet:and is now seeking federal registration of this version of li'l "a" too:

See here, here, here, and here.

As you may recall from my last post, the design appearing beneath the lowercase "a" has been identified as a "miscellaneous" design. Now, it is being identified as a "smile or curved arrow."

As for others who also have shown interest in protecting their own li'l "a" marks in connection with "retail" services, see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

As for capital "A" logos in connection with "retail" services, see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

So, given all this, what is the meaningful scope of protection for a service mark comprising li'l "a"?
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Simply a Miscellaneous Design?

Posted on October 8, 2009 by Steve Baird

Mark Image

In case you're wondering, this design is a federally-registered non-verbal trademark.

The owner identified it as a "Miscellaneous Design," without further detail or description (since it predated the more rigorous rules on supplying the Trademark Office with an accurate and detailed description of the mark).

The U.S. Trademark Office assigned to this design mark Design Code 24.15.25 ("other arrows") and in some cases 26.17.09 ("bands, curved; bars, curved; curved lines, bands or bars; lines, curved.").

So, now that you're armed with all this valuable information, certainly you can answer three simple questions: (1) Who owns it? (2) What is it? and (3) What goods or services are identified and distinguished by this non-verbal design mark?

(1) Does this help answer my first question?

Mark Image

(2) As to what it is, most individuals at the Trademark Office who have coded the design connecting the "a" to "z" see an arrow, but some see a curved line too.

I see a smile (perhaps my positive outlook on life), but I'm aware of at least one other optimist, here. Actually, Graphic Design Blog identifies the Amazon.com logo as one of 25 logos with "hidden messages," one being the apparent smile. In addition, if you were to pay close attention to a previously used animated version of the Amazon.com logo, I am informed you might be able to see another more unwholesome and unintended perspective of the design, apparently an animated version from the year 2000 where the arrow grows from left to right, as described here.

(3) Now, as to what goods or services are identified and distinguished by this "miscellaneous" design mark, it is only federally-registered in the U.S. within Int'l Class 39 for "packaging of articles for transport for others." Amazon.com sought registration of the "miscellaneous" design in Int'l Classes 35, 36, 38, 41, and 42, but each of those applications eventually was abandoned. 

Having said that, the "miscellaneous" design appears as part of the Amazon.com composite logo shown above and is federally-registered in that composite form for a variety of services falling in the same Int'l Classes that were abandoned for the stand-alone non-verbal logo, namely, 35, 36, 38, 41, and 42.

Lessons to be Learned?

  • The "miscellaneous" description won't cut it anymore, more detail is now required;
  • Sometimes designs can communicate multiple meanings and commercial impressions;
  • Ultimately, the meaning of a non-verbal design is based on the impression actually created in the minds of consumers, not what may have been intended by the trademark owner or assigned by the Trademark Office; 
  • The assignment of U.S. Trademark Office Design Codes is rather subjective and quite imperfect; and
  • Searching to clear non-verbal logos can be quite difficult and is more art than science.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Rise and Fall of Online Social Networks?

Posted on July 10, 2009 by Dan Kelly

Four weeks ago, I blogged about FaceBook's ill-advised move to allow unique username URLs.  Some time between then and now, FaceBook removed the page where trademark owners could defensively register their marks to prevent others from choosing such marks as user names.  Now, a rights holder's only recourse is to submit this form to report an infringing user name. 

In the course of my research of FaceBook, I have found that actually using FaceBook for affirmatively useful business purposes, such as setting up a business account or creating an ad, can be a mind-numbingly difficult task.  FaceBook's shortcomings, I think, are neatly addressed in this frustrated FaceBook user's help question:  "does anyone know how to actually get help from facebook help?"

Two weeks ago, I read news reports of MySpace's woes.  (And by the way, has anyone ever remarked on the similarities of the MySpace and FaceBook landing pages?)  This week, I finally gave in and actually tried to follow some feeds on Twitter, much to my frustration--it is ridiculously clunky. 

So, much as this may paint me as a new "new media" luddite, I must ask:  What is the fascination with these so-called "social networking" web sites?  As far as I can tell, they are clunky, inefficient, inhospitable time-wasters.  Unless these sites become savvy (and quickly) to some simple principles of usability and customer service, I doubt that any one of them will really become viable and succeed over the long haul.  As illustrated by the likes of Amazon.com, Google, Craigslist, Drudge Report, and others, there are many, many ways to succeed on the Internet, but social networking may not be one of them.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Title of Your Story

Posted on June 30, 2009 by Guest Blogger

What’s the first thing you think about when you’re naming a company or a product? Securing a domain? Avoiding trademark conflict? Sounding different from your competitors?

All are important concerns. But I contend that the first thing you should think about is this:

A name is the title of your story.

Yes, you’re naming your company or your product. But what you’re really doing is putting a title on the story you’re telling investors, shareholders, customers, and employees.

If you’re smart and lucky, the name you choose will be the title of a great story. A best-seller. A legend. A tale told around the campfire for generations.

If you’re haphazard or confused or pretentious or timid, your name will end up on the equivalent of the remainders table at your local bookstore: piles of copies at 70 percent off.

You can have a great story that nobody wants to read because the title is pedestrian or perplexing or pompous.

Or you can create demand for your story by giving it a title that tells just enough without giving away the plot.

So before you do any internal namestorming or hire a name developer, spend some time thinking about the story your company or product needs to tell.

Thinking about “story” requires a shift away from what you focus on day to day. Your elevator pitch and your PowerPoint presentation may tell your investors and shareholders and customers about your product’s new features or your market niche or your global strategy. They are not your story. They are bits of information.

Here's what Annette Simmons, author of The Story Factor, says about this:

"People don't want more information. They are up to their eyeballs in information. They want faith—faith in you, your goals, your success, in the story you tell. ... Once people make your story their story, you have tapped into the powerful force of faith."

And here's what the great Russian writer Anton Chekhov said:

"Don't tell me the moon is shining; show me the glint of light on broken glass."

How do you find your story? By stripping away everything that isn’t story: your products, your process, your team of super-smart engineers. And by focusing instead on your master narrative.

Story is bigger than “who we are.” As the title of a story, Amazon doesn’t say “online seller of books, music, and everything else we can get our hands on.” On the top level of the story, it says “big, deep, and powerful.” On a less conscious level it says “amazing” (a close cognate), it says “on” (the final syllable), and it says “A to Z” (incorporated into the spelling). It even says “am” (first syllable), as in “I the customer am involved with this enterprise.”

Story is bigger that “what we do.” As the title of a story, Viagra doesn’t say “effective treatment for erectile disfunction.” It doesn’t say “sildenafil citranate.” It says “via—the way to get there”; it says “virile,” “vital,” “vitamin,” and “viva!”; it says “grow” (so close to “-gra”); it says “Niagara—ceaseless power”; it says “Agra—site of the Taj Mahal, that monument to love.” And it says “women will love it, too”—note the feminine “-a” ending.

Do you read all of those meanings into these names the first time you hear or read them—or even the twelfth? Of course you don’t. But because the meanings are so positive, their power accretes each time you hear the name or roll it around in your mouth. “Yes,” you think without quite knowing why. “I want some more of that.”

Can a strong name take the place of sound technology and a business plan and a smart management team and solid financing? Of course it can’t. But without a compelling story, you won’t engage your audience. And your name—the title of your story—is your first chance to do it.

—Nancy Friedman, Chief Wordworker at Wordworking
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Driving Your Internet Traffic: the Hazards of Direct Navigation

Posted on April 17, 2009 by Dan Kelly

How did you get here?  Seriously, how did you navigate to this web page?  Is DuetsBlog.com in your bookmarks?  (Do you have an Internet "loop"?)  Perhaps you navigated directly by going to the little box at the top of the page and typing in "www.duetsblog.com."  If you did this last step, and did it without mistyping, congratulations.  You directly navigated to this page.  Those that mistyped might have gone here or here or here.  (Hopefully those people will join us soon.)

Many domainers capitalize on the mistakes Internet users make when directly navigating to web pages, and policing this activity can be tiresome because there are so many ways to make mistakes, like these:

A business or organization that relies on heavy Internet traffic, like amazon.com, should own a wide variety of typographical variants of its domain name(s).  Amazon.com, Inc. owns thousands of domain names, and most of them are variants of amazon.com.  In fact, it is pretty difficult to find a typographical variant of amazon.com that does not take you to amazon.com.  (And if you've read this far, you've killed enough time already that you might as well try it.)

The upshot is that a business or organization can either let domainers typosquat on its domain names, or it can capture its own typo traffic. 

Untrill nxet weeek . . .

Tags: , , , , , ,