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

Putting aside, for now, the unsettled question of who currently owns the iPad trademark, and Dan's perspective on Apple's trademark clearance strategies, from last week, look at what our finely-tuned e-mail spam filter just snagged:

It is a similar story to my previous Free Dell XPS Laptop Spam Scam? blog post from last December. Here, however, the Apple, iPad, and the (possible) iPad configuration trademarks, are the newest form of brand bait for what appears to be an ongoing type of spam e-mail scam. They're fast. It only took about two weeks after Apple's announcement of the iPad for these folks to bait their electronic hook with the newest branding lure.

By the way, how is it that these folks can make the free offer before Apple's iPad tablet is even available to the public? As of today, Apple still has a notify me page, if you'd like to "be among the first to receive iPad." So, doesn't the present unavailability of the iPad add to the misleading nature of the above advertisement because it seeks "testers" for this "new" product?

What do you think, misleading advertising, fair use of Apple's intellectual property?

This story also appears related to the topic covered in my previous Is Wal-Mart Giving Away Free $1,000 Gift Cards? blog post too.

What do these unsolicited e-mail programs have in common? Well, besides the fact that they all appear to originate from Canada (for reasons unknown to me), they use well-known, if not famous brands to attract attention online and convince you to supply them with your e-mail address. Really, would anyone pay even an ounce of attention to any of these e-mail spam solicitations without the unauthorized use of these popular brand names and images?

In an apparent attempt to avoid misleading anyone and confusion, of course, as was the case with the Free Dell XPS offer and the Wal-Mart $1,000 Gift Card offer, the Apple iPad ad offers a purported disclaimer:

The advertisers in this email are not affiliated with any of the above brands.

This is a third party advertisement sent to you by the list owner. If you no longer wish to receive email from this advertiser, please write Reward Group 191 7 West 4th Avenue, Suite 279 Vancouver, B.C. VJ6-1M7 or visit our email removal site by click here.

If you do not wish to receive correspondence from the list manager you will need to follow the unsubscribe instructions provide by the list manager on how to remove you from their list.

Who are the advertisers? Who is the list owner? It says the advertisers are not affiliated with any of the brands, so does that mean the list owner is? Does this disclaimer do the job with claims relating to likelihood of confusion as to source, affiliation, sponsorship, and approval?

Even in the unlikely event it does, what about claims for initial interest confusion? Where is the disclaimer for that additional type of unlawful trademark confusion? And, since there is a reasonable claim of trademark fame for many of these brands, is it even possible to have a disclaimer that avoids a state or federal dilution claim concerning a famous mark?

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

We've had a little rash of graphic design comedic parody lately.

The first example is the notoriously funny The South Butt and its tagline "Never Stop Relaxing". Of course, this is an obvious knockoff of leading outdoor clothier The North Face and its "Never Stop Exploring" call to action. From a legal perspective, of course, this is a bit problematic - especially when The South Butt began selling apparel. (Until then, a fun mockery might have earned them a nasty letter, but not a full-on lawsuit).

However, whether The North Face likes it or not, it is a victim of its own popularity. While the company was still a niche brand, focusing on only seasoned outdoorspeople, no one cared. But once it crossed over into high fashion (and became the must-have in every 13-year-old girl's wardrobe), a backlash was inevitable. The same thing happened to Abercrombie and Fitch (remember the raucously funny MadTV sketches)?

From a marketing perspective, The North Face should be content to let this go. Yes, it's irritating, and yes, legally it's an affront. But making too big of a deal of the situation likely will backfire.

Here's another example that should not be taken lying down.

If I were the Humane Society of the United States, I would be preparing my lawsuit at this moment. Say what you will about the politics of the HSUS (suffice to say, it is not just about finding homes for adorable puppies), HumaneWatch is making a visual affront to the organization and its ability to distinguish itself in the market. In short, the competing organization is using HSUS intellectual property (the logo) to bolster its own low standing, confusing people into paying attention.

Whatever side of the political/moral/business issue you might be on, this has to be stopped.

Related Links:

http://www.thesouthbutt.com/

http://www.humanewatch.org/

—Jason Voiovich, Principal and Co-Founder of Ecra Creative Group and Author of the State of the Brand weekly column

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

It's not every day you get a chance to use that phrase in a headline. But, what may become known as the "The Cayman Kerfuffle", presents the perfect opportunity.

Would a reasonable person find these confusingly similar?

$51,000 Blue Cayman                                                      $30 Blue Cayman

Let's see, one is a sleek, pricey, well-engineered, high performance sports car that is available in a variety of colors, the other is a stubby, inexpensive, molded plastic clog-like sandal that is also available in a variety of colors. Hmmm.

Even though the Porsche vs. Crocs dust up was discussed widely in November 2009, the seeming inanity still grinds on my nerves. So I can't resist another airing.

If you missed the coverage, here is the kerfuffle catalyst from the Crocs, Inc. Form 10-Q:

"On May 11, 2009, Crocs Europe B.V. received a letter from Dr. Ing. H.c.F. Porsche AG ("Porsche") claiming that the Company's use of the "Cayman" shoe model designator infringes upon their Community Trademark Registration of the mark "CAYMAN" in class 25. Porsche is requesting that Crocs Europe B.V. immediately cease and desist use of the Cayman mark and pay Porsche's attorney's fees in conjunction with the issuance of the notice letter. On July 30, 2009 the Company was served with notice of an injunction against Crocs Europe BV's use of the Cayman mark in Germany. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against these claims."

Granted, Porsche has a registered trademark for "Cayman" in several international classes including 025, which does encompass footwear, and sells a line of Porsche Design shoes, although, apparently, not under the Cayman label.

I might understand Porsche being embarrassed by the possible association with the popular foam resin clogs spotted on the feet of celeb-kinder in Hollywood, South Beach, and other trendy locales. But infringement? Seriously? Shouldn't Porsche be more embarrassed for making this an issue? Likelihood of confusion is doubtful, unless Porsche dramatically changes its fashion strategy.

Realistically, few people will confuse Crocs Cayman clogs for a Porsche Cayman sports car or one of their designer driving shoes. Fewer still will think they originate from Porsche. Should they, a quick check of the Crocs logo on the shoe itself would correct any incertitude.

Several thoughts arise: Since the Crocs Cayman line was available commercially as early as 2004, five years before the registration issue date of April 2009 for Porsche, does Crocs have prior rights? Should International Truck Intellectual Property Company, owner of the Cayman trademark in International Class 012, which includes sports cars, seek redress from Porsche for infringement? Should Lacoste file an amicus brief since they have an oblique interest? After all, a Cayman is a type of alligator, and should Porsche prevail -- I don't see how, but lets pretend – based on their interpretation of infringement and confusion, the Lacoste logo, shown below, would be a likely next target.

Stay with me on this. It is probable that people driving Porsche Caymans could also be wearing Lacoste clothing, so confusion of origin is surely immanent. Hey, is that a Cayman polo shirt you're wearing?

On the subject of confusion, perhaps the Cayman Islands should pursue Porsche and Crocs for infringement. It is likely to find both products on the Islands, even at the same time and place, and wouldn't the Cayman Islands have prior rights, if we follow the labyrinthic logic in this argument? Toss in people wearing Lacoste fashions, and since most can't tell a Cayman from a run of the pond alligator, it could start a whole reptilian-brand confusion-fest and who knows where that would lead!

This could become a Trademark Infringement Smackdown with, say, Crocodile Dundee headlining. Although, come to think of it, this has certain "The Real Housewives of Intellectual Property" (surely an oxymoron) qualities to it and could spawn a new reality series on Bravo. The notion is no more ridiculous than the Porsche accusation -- and indubitably more entertaining. 

OK, my tongue is tired of being in my cheek.

The old maxim "just because you can, doesn't mean you should" seems apropos. The ill will engendered by overly aggressive enforcement, where likelihood of harm is not apparent, is damaging to a brand, even one as famous and resilient as Porsche. It will likely appear to consumers as needless bullying. That perception can cost far more to rectify than any possible impact of the perceived infringement.

Who's the likely winner in this spat? Certainly not Porsche. Crocs stands to gain from the publicity generated by this action. It is not exactly the way a company wants to gain visibility, but as a creative guy managing brands, I'd take what I get and spin it into branding silk – at the expense of Porsche, of course.

Randall Hull, The Br@nd Ranch®

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

An in-depth focus on arguably the most important trademark issue to brand owners and their trademark counsel. The seminar will focus on the many faces of trademark confusion, with a special focus on initial interest confusion, reverse confusion, survey evidence, and post-sale confusion theories.

Promises to be a good program, we hope you join us, special guests Ron Coleman and Nancy Friedman will be in town, and Paul Mussell from Wells Fargo, see here for the link on the Minnesota Continuing Legal Education website. See here for a pdf of the brochure, please check it out.

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

Same drill as yesterday. Another email spam scam? More trademark fair use abuse?

Is it just me, or is the branded email spam coming out of the virtual woodwork, or what?

It appears that spam email -- complete with fully branded solicitations -- is becoming more and more aggressive, both from legal and technology perspectives.

We have a pretty aggressive email spam filter, but this one, like the one I blogged about yesterday, slide right through our screen, just like butter.

From the legal and trademark perspective, don't these advertisers pay attention to the limitations of the nominative fair use defense?

With respect to the purported disclaimer, if you were to scroll all the way down to the bottom of your computer screen, before you hit the CLICK HERE icon, you'd find it is virtually identical to the one from yesterday, only the mailing address has changed:

The advertisers in this email are not affiliated with any of the above brands.

This is a third party advertisement sent to you by the list owner. If you no longer wish to receive email from this list owner, please write Gift Sponsors 7B-871 Victoria Street North, Suite #105, Kitchener, Ontario N2b 3S4 or visit our email removal site by click here.

If you do not wish to receive correspondence from the list manager you will need to follow the unsubscribe instructions provide by the list manager on how to remove you from their list.

Now, at least one website suggests that Wal-Mart is the one actually behind these kind of free gift card offers, here, but I find that really, really hard to believe.

What do you think? What do you know?

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

What if you were told that if you agreed to "test" a Dell XPS laptop you could keep it, for free?

Would you expect the offer to be from Dell Computer?

After all, who else but the manufacturer would care to give a computer away for simply having you test it?

Would you at least expect the offer to be affiliated with, or authorized, or approved by Dell Computer?

What if the unsolicited email offer avoided your spam filter and looked something like this?

Would you click on the "CLICK HERE" icon as instructed, or would you scroll all the way down to the bottom of the page to see if you might be able to learn more before clicking?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• 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

A couple of hours ago Kare 11 News in Minneapolis reported "Lions Tap wins settlement with McDonalds."

Absolutely no details about the settlement were provided, so it's hard to understand how Kare 11 is able to pronounce this as a "win" for Lion's Tap over McDonalds, although it certainly plays into the seductive David and Goliath theme of the case. The attorney for Lion's Tap apparently is quoted as saying the parties reached a "mutually beneficial amicable resolution," and Kare 11 further reports that McDonalds did not "immediately return a phone message seeking a comment" today.

Perhaps even more troubling than the unsupported "win" characterization, is the repeated failure of the traditional media covering this story to get the facts straight -- facts easily discernible by reading the federal court complaint that is so often recited in the stories, but apparently very few actually have undertaken to read it. In case you're interested, here is another link to the actual complaint.

As we have documented before on DuetsBlog, Lion's Tap did not register the "Who's Your Patty" slogan until after McDonalds began use and only days before filing suit against McDonalds, and it did not register -- even in Minnesota -- four years ago, as repeatedly and incorrectly reported ad nauseam by the media.

In fairness, although local CBS affiliate WCCO also republished the significant error on the timing of Lion's Tap's Minnesota registration of the "Who's Your Patty" slogan, at least it didn't assume the settlement to be a "win" for the Tap: "Lion's Tap Settles With McD's Over Catchphrase."

Our coverage of this case is here (9/3/09), here (9/8/09), here (9/21/09), and here (10/17/09).

In case we have not heard the last word on this case, stay tuned, and we'll let you know more as we know more about this Lion's Tap "win" and "mutually beneficial" resolution.

UPDATE: Is the Star Tribune reading DuetsBlog? It appears so. A Google search shows the Star Tribune's original story title on the settlement was: "Lion's Tap wins trademark suit against McDonald's," but now the story is titled: "Lion's Tap settles trademark suit against McDonald's," with no mention of the Minnesota State registration.

Now we just need to get USAToday, NPR, Newstin, Daylife, and NewsSpider, on the bandwagon.

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

  

Do you suppose Dial has any regrets in letting the clock logo go?

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

The Minneapolis Star Tribune finally reported on the Who's Your Patty? trademark infringement lawsuit filed in August by self-proclaimed "David" (Lion's Tap) against "Goliath" (McDonald's), here. Our previous coverage is here, here, and here.

The Star Tribune reports that McDonald's has not yet answered the complaint filed by Lion's Tap. That's true, but all that means is that Lion's Tap filed, but has not yet formally served the complaint on McDonald's. Had the complaint been formally served on McDonald's, as the rules require before an obligation to answer arises, then McDonald's would have twenty days in which to respond. So, the parties continue to negotiate for an amicable settlement. 

No doubt, "David" would prefer not to have to formally serve the complaint because that is when the federal court's machinery starts to turn and more significant money begins to be spent in pursuing the case. Of course, Lion's Tap will need to formally serve the complaint on McDonald's within 120 days of filing the complaint or risk the suit being dismissed, so, just before year end. We previously have discussed the strategy of filing, but not immediately serving federal court complaints, here.

The Star Tribune story also reports: "The Lion's Tap says it has been using the phrase for at least four years and has had it trademarked in Minnesota. It also has a federal trademark application submitted." The use of past tense "had" appears to repeat the same incorrect fact that most of the media ran with when the story originally broke, namely, that Lion's Tap had registered Who's Your Patty? as a trademark slogan before McDonald's began use of the same slogan, implying McDonald's knowingly "stole" something of Lion's Tap.

As you may recall, we already pointed out how nearly all the media outlets got this critical fact wrong, as Lion's Tap did not register until ten days before it filed suit against McDonald's, and well after McDonald's posted billboards bearing the slogan. All the Hamburglar references don't stick to McDonald's if it knew nothing about Lion's Tap's discrete prior use of the Who's Your Patty? slogan, an entirely plausible scenario, as we have already discussed, here.

Most interesting, at least to me, are the scores of reader comments to the Star Tribune story, here.

For the time being, they reveal that, for just about every enthusiastic Lion's Tap fan who loves to support the small fry and is cheering on "David" there is a pretty harsh critic of Lion's Tap, some even taking pot shots at the quality of its food. Indeed, it appears a substantial number would endorse Jason Voiovich's caution: "Here's the problem, instead of coming off as the victim (which you could argue Lion's Tap is), they come off as another coffee-in-the-crotch, show-me-the-money, lawsuit-happy opportunist." So, you might say that PR can cut both ways.

The comments also understandably reveal more confusion between Lion's Tap and Lyon's Pub than between David's and Goliath's respective uses of Who's Your Patty?

Also, I learned from the comments about another reportedly great burger joint that appears to be worth the extra drive: Hopper's Bar in Waconia. I'll make sure to let you know how that goes. So, beware, PR efforts can unintentionally inform even loyal patrons of competitive alternatives too!

More on the legal claims, after the jump, in case you're interested.

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

As promised, here are some additional thoughts (beyond the very frank and practical non-legal advice already shared by Jason Voiovich) about Lion's Tap's trademark infringement case against McDonald's over the "Who's Your Patty?" slogan.

Here's the multi-million dollar question: What did McDonald's know and when did they know it? Those are questions likely to get a lot of attention in this case.

Could McDonald's have known about Lion's Tap's prior use of the "Who's Your Patty?" tagline from a drive by the single restaurant location? Not according to the exterior signage shown above.

Could McDonald's have known about Lion's Tap's prior use of the "Who's Your Patty?" tagline by checking for state or federal trademark registrations? No, Lion's Tap didn't register in Minnesota or attempt to federally-register the tagline until a week before filing suit, well after McDonald's had launched its "Who's Your Patty?" campaign.

Could McDonald's have known about Lion's Tap's prior use of the "Who's Your Patty?" tagline by conducting appropriate internet searches? Recognizing that most comprehensive trademark searches will examine the internet, here is where it might get interesting.

Just for you, I did a little poking around, and despite the fact that the current Lion's Tap website prominently displays the "Who's Your Patty?" tagline, The Wayback Machine (having archived updated content on Lion's Tap's website for these dates: November 5, 2005, December 27, 2005, June 26, 2006, January 26, 2007, January 27, 2007, December 1, 2007, and February 1, 2008), does not appear to show or document any use of the "Who's Your Patty?" tagline as late as February 1, 2008, the last time the site apparently was crawled by The Wayback Machine. Interestingly, those archived pages show other Lion's Tap taglines in use, such as: "Any Fresher and it Might Get Slapped," "Sponsoring the Napkin Industry Since 1977," "Yes, They Really Do Exist. Come See One for Yourself," and "Lions and Burgers and Fries, Oh My! "

So, where was the "Who's Your Patty?" tagline being used by Lion's Tap prior to McDonald's adoption and use of the "Who's Your Patty?" slogan? Was it being used in a way that McDonald's could have found it, using reasonable precaution and diligence?

You might be interested to know that my most recent visit to the Tap -- after the complaint was filed -- revealed surprisingly minimal use of the "Who's Your Patty? tagline within the restaurant interior (and none on the exterior of the restaurant). It wasn't on wall-board menus or the on-table menus, nor on any interior signage, at least that I saw. It did appear on one wall-mounted t-shirt with a price tag on it, and one of the servers was wearing a t-shirt bearing the "Who's Your Patty?" tagline.

Let's not forget that Lion's Tap is also claiming a "famous" mark in the "Who's Your Patty?" tagline, at least "famous" in Minnesota. What do you think, does this amount of use qualify for fame?

Stay tuned, as we continue to follow this very interesting case.

As a tangentially-related side note, ironically, Patty Wood, a real estate agent from Deer Park, Texas, appears to have beaten both Lion's Tap and McDonald's to the punch in registering the internet domain whosyourpatty.com.

UPDATE: Here.

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

When it comes to scope of rights and trademark enforcement, as a trademark type, it's hard not to admire Adidas' success in preventing the use of two, three, and four stripes, when its long-standing federally-registered design mark consists of three stripes.

At least in the U.S., Adidas appears to have gained a one stripe buffer on either side of its powerful three stripe iconic symbol, so advocates for Adidas might say 2, 3, or 4 stripes, and you're out (of luck anyway).

(For some great coverage on Adidas' recent trademark enforcement activities, check out Seattle Trademark Lawyer).

How can it be then (within the hospitality industry), that no analogous buffer exists between 4&5, Motel 6, Big 7 Motel, Bel-Air Motel 7, Big 7 Motel (Chula Vista, California), Big 7 Motel (Valdosta, Georgia), Magnificent Seven, Seven Days, Super 8, and National 9 Inn, with them all happily coexisting (apparently) without any likelihood of confusion?

(Also, how can it be that Super 8 (apparently) doesn't control the Super8Inn.com domain?)

Perhaps it all comes down to what your trademark strength and likelihood of confusion analysis happens to count, stripes or numbers . . . .

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

Taglines and advertising slogans can be wonderful branding and marketing tools, but I'm thinking (not Arby's, by the way) that McDonald's is probably not thinkin' that its (likely) famous I'm lovin' it tagline accurately describes its taste for the federal trademark infringement lawsuit that Twin Cities-based Lion's Tap recently slapped on McDonald's for its whopper of an advertising campaign -- promoting its new Angus Third Pounders -- served up with the clever and simple play-on-words advertising slogan and question: Who's Your Patty?

No doubt, McDonald's likely will not make a run for the border, instead, it likely will instruct its team of lawyers to think outside the bun in designing a successful legal defense and response strategy, in the hope of not hearing the court say to Lion's Tap in the end, have it your way. 

For your reading pleasure, here is a pdf copy of the complaint filed last Friday in Minnesota federal district court. As you will see from the Minnesota State Who's Your Patty? Certificate of Registration (attached to the filed complaint), Lion's Tap waited to register its claimed mark in Minnesota until August 18, 2009, ten days before filing suit. As a result, Lion's Tap clearly did not register the tagline "four years ago," or back in 2005 (the year it claims to have commenced use), as incorrectly reported ad nauseam, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Well, at least a couple of the media outlets covering the story avoided the mistake, and got the registration date right.

So, why is the date of registration significant? If McDonald's didn't know about Lion's Tap's use before rolling out its own use of "Who's Your Patty?" -- an entirely plausible scenario, since the mark was not registered, even in Minnesota, until well after and apparently in response to McDonald's already commenced use -- it starts to look like a much different case for Lion's Tap (more un-Hamburglar-like), for reasons I'll explain later.

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

Best Buy, owner of the Geek Squad brand since 2002, has filed a federal trademark infringement complaint in Minnesota against a pair of individual defendants apparently located in Missouri and California, for allegedly registering and using <thegeekpatrol.biz> domain and the names "Geek Patrol," "Geek Squad," and "Geek Squad Patrol". Here is a copy of the Complaint, including Exhibit A (Trademark registrations), Exhibit B (DomainTools.com print out), Exhibit C (Tollfreeda.com print out), and Exhibit D (Superpages.com print out).

For those of you interested in great entrepreneurial stories, Robert Stephens founded Geek Squad while a student at the University of Minnesota, riding his bicycle around Minneapolis to make computer house calls. The stylish collection of branded Beetles permitted Stephens to cover much more ground when making house calls or office calls. I actually had the pleasure of meeting Robert Stephens and toured his humble first office located above Moose & Sadie's cafe and coffeehouse blocks from downtown Minneapolis. He gave me and my wife what are now vintage Geek Squad t-shirts, obviously we should have had them autographed at the time!

My early and initial observations of the Geek Squad trademark Complaint are below the jump.

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

Brand managers and marketers often wonder about the risks and consequences of not enforcing or protecting their trademarks from infringement. A shooting target formed by a series of concentric circles is the best graphic I have found to illustrate the legal answer to their frequent question.

Judging from the robust criticism Twitter has received about its lax or laissez-faire approach to trademark enforcement, the Twitter folks have never seen (or perhaps they have chosen to ignore) the shooting target graphic illustration. Distilling these criticisms to their essence, basically there are more than a few folks out there asking Twitter: "What are you doing?"

The irony of this is hard not to find amusing, given how Twitter explains its reason for existence this way: "Twitter is a service for friends, family, and co–workers to communicate and stay connected through the exchange of quick, frequent answers to one simple question: What are you doing?" For Twitter, only time will tell how "simple" the trademark enforcement "question" is for itself to answer.

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

Rapala, the world's largest manufacturer of fishing lures has pleasured us with some pretty clever and creative advertisements over the years, a lot of them award-winning ads too. For example, Carmichael Lynch created the above billboard ad that over time gradually "attracted cats" to the billboard featuring a super-sized Rapala minnow fishing lure. Lots of cats, in fact, many more than you can shake a stick at, you might say, if you fancy idioms and don't happen to be fond of those feline types. Carmichael Lynch notes: "With simplicity and humor, we've helped the [Rapala] brand connect with its enthusiast audience and grow to be the undisputed market leader for fishing lures." This is simply delicious creativity.

More recently, however, the undisputed market leader for fishing lures is now using the brand name of the undisputed market leader for Internet search engines in Rapala billboard advertising, apparently to continue growing Rapala's fishing lure business. Although there are Twitter tweets and other mentions on the web referring to this new Rapala billboard ad, I haven't been able to locate an online image yet, so I'll have to take a picture of the one I have seen myself and post it here when I can. In the meantime, just picture the above billboard minus the cats (and minnow lure) and with this slogan in large prominent black type above the red Rapala logo: "More Hits Than Google". Is this new Rapala billboard ad one of the award-winning variety?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (5)
• 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