Duets Blog : Creativity and the Law: DuetsBlog

A couple of months ago I saw in a convenience store a large Snickers point-of-sale floor-display depicting a prominent and attention-getting cross-section of a Snickers candy bar. Given Mars' apparent interest in owning and creating non-traditional trademark rights surrounding the Snickers brand (revisit Dan's post from earlier this year), it made me wonder whether Mars might view (and want consumers to view) the cross-section of the famous Snickers candy bar as a trademark too. After all, trademarks are one form of intellectual property that can last forever, so long as they continue to be used in commerce. In case you're wondering, I couldn't find any indication that Mars has sought to register any candy bar cross-sections as trademarks.

Now, keeping in mind, to be a non-traditional trademark, the symbol or device must (a) identify the goods, (b) distinguish the goods from those of others, and (c) indicate the source of the goods, there appears to be (at least) some potential for treating candy bar cross-sections as trademarks, provided the cross-sections actually are used as trademarks in commerce. In other words, it's not enough that the bars could be sliced to view their otherwise purely internal cross-sections; depictions of the cross-sections would have to appear on packaging or at least point-of-sale materials (advertising alone won't cut it).

So, to satisfy a court's hunger for the "use in commerce" requirement, and if depicting the candy bar cross-section on packaging leads to a creative buzz-kill, then a prominent cross-section on point-of-sale displays should suffice. Having said that, given the non-traditional nature of a cross-sectional trademark, perhaps some "look-for" advertising might be just what the candy man ordered to help create the cross-section as a delicious new non-traditional trademark. The Candyblog certainly enjoys showing cross-sections of candy bars in discussing the pros and cons of the various goodies they review.

What about functionality, you ask? Yes, if the depiction of the cross-section is determined to be functional, then it can never serve or be protected as a trademark. What do you think, is it functional? While the taste of the candy bar is clearly functional, the appearance of the cross-section is far less clearly functional. For example, presumably taste would remain unchanged so long as the ingredients remain constant, even with multiple variations on the internal configuration and layering of those ingredients.

There are actually some on-line quizzes you can take to test your visual sweet tooth skills, on Slashfood, here, and The Science Museum of Minnesota's Thinking Fountain, here. Some are easier than others. Now, to the extent consumers are able to "name" the candy bar associated with the shown cross-section, does that help satisfy all three trademark elements or only the first two? And, to avoid the leading nature of the question (as criticized in a U.K. trademark opposition brought against Mars involving candy bar appearance) would it make sense to first ask respondents whether they are able to determine who put out the candy bar in question by only seeing its cross-section?

On a related note, Mars is currently soliciting video content "starring" Snickers, so perhaps some creative type will accept the assignment, and in the process, author some powerful "look-for" advertising to help Mars acquire and build non-traditional trademark rights in the Snickers cross-section. If I were to accept the assignment, my submission would be to depict nothing but the cross-section of a Snickers candy bar within the non-traditional federally-registered parallelogram shape, but then, I'm a trademark type with only limited creative abilities.

So, can you identify a Snickers bar and distinguish it from others by the cross-section alone?

Do you believe consumers perceive the cross-section as a trademark pointing uniquely to one single brand?

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

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

Mars recently introduced a new candy bar, Fling, marketed exclusively to women, advertised as “an un-regrettably indulgent new product for women”.  The website is predominantly pink and is littered with very stereo-typical one-liners meant to be sexy such as “you never know when you’ll want to have a Fling” and “so tear it open and sneak in a quickie.”   The packaging is shiny pink and silver with the tag-line “Naughty, but not that naughty.” 

The marketing campaign is nothing more than a concoction of cliches directed toward women simply because it is a low calorie candy bar, touted as under 85 calories per stick.  Interestingly, since there are two sticks in a package, Fling has about the same number of calories as other, gender neutral, candy bars such as Nestle's Chunky Bar (190 calories; I don’t believe Nestle was thinking about marketing directly to women when it named this candy bar), Nestle's 100 Grand Bar (190 calories), or Mar's Milky Way (approximately 220 calories).

I can’t decide whether this marketing campaign is smart or insulting.  While the company claims it is for women, the target audience is obviously younger women (late teens - 20’s) who may not be as insulted as slightly older women (lets say 30's).  In researching this blog, I did find numerous comments from women who were insulted, such as www.wonderbranding.com, (Fling blog) and Creative Skirts.  Mars is marketing this new product as a guiltless fling.  However, like any other fling, you don't realize how bad it is for you until its too late. 

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