Duets Blog : Creativity and the Law: DuetsBlog

Here is the answer, and here is the link to the trademark information.

By the way, have you ever noticed this trademark on Kraft's or Nabisco's Chips Ahoy packaging, at least before now?

Me neither, despite being a trademark geek, and despite encountering (and assisting in the consumption of) more than a few packages over many years.

How many ways are there to dress up an exclamation mark (without words) as a trademark anyway?

Apparently quite a few: (1) A combined question mark and exclamation point, (2) another combined exclamation point and question mark, (3) a combined exclamation point and human eye, (4) a combined exclamation point and dollar sign, (5) exclamation point resembling a footprint, (6) a circle with an exclamation point, (7) another exclamation point within a circle, (8) yet another stylized exclamation point in a circle, (9) circle design with exclamation point inside, (10) exclamation point inside triangle inside circle, (11) stylized exclamation point inside rectangle, (12) blue circle with off-centered cut out of exclamation point, (13) red-colored exclamation point, (14) exclamation point within a green octagon, (15) a fanciful exclamation point, (16) exclamation point within a shield, (17) the point on an exclamation is a crescent, (18) a stylized exclamation point, (19) exclamation point within a light bulb, (20) the point on an exclamation is a star, (21)exclamation point within quotation marks, (22) an unremarkable exclamation point, (23) exclamation point in middle of flower, (24) exclamation point on center of bottle cap design, (25) oval and an exclamation point, (26) another stylized exclamation point, and (27) another, and (28) another.

And, the award for the most disguised exclamation goes to . . . "an exclamation mark within a wolf head design interwoven with a serpant design."

At this point, I'm thinking that the Chips Ahoy exclamation is starting to look a little ordinary.

Now, if adding an exclamation mark (what the USPTO calls "common punctuation") to the end of a series of descriptive words (e.g., America's Favorite Popcorn!) is not adding enough to avoid mere descriptiveness (TMEP 1209.03(u)), how is it that an exclamation mark can immediately function as an inherently disctinctive trademark all by itself?

With respect to International protection for exclamation marks, recently, German clothing and fragrance designer Joop! apparently lost its bid to register an exclamation mark as a trademark in the European Union, report here. Basically, the EU was not going to assume distinctiveness, Joop! had to prove it, and apparently failed.

What do you suppose the USPTO knows about registering common punctuation marks as inherently distinctive trademarks that the EU doesn't?

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?

Well, in general, this format and style is more flexible, easier to clear for adoption and use, easier to register and protect each element separately, and easier to enforce rights in both verbal and non-verbal elements.

With respect to enhanced flexibility, a trademark owner can elect to always use the verbal and non-verbal elements together, perhaps as a way of reducing the risk of infringing on another's prior rights in a mark perhaps similar to either the verbal or non-verbal element, or as Jack Cuffari commented, the combination logo is the "best-case scenario" because it is possible to "wean the symbol away from the name once research has proven that the target audience gets the connection, so that the symbol can be used alone, or in conjunction with the brand name."

Indeed, few symbol logos spring into existence without a history of having been used side by side with the underlying brand name, so, the symbol adopted by the "Artist Formerly Known as Prince" is probably the best exception to this general rule:

With respect to ease of clearance, it is generally less of a challenge to clear physically separable combination logos over text logos or integrated combination logos, since the Mercedes-Benz verbal portion involves a straightforward word search, and the corresponding three-point star within a circle symbol involves a straightforward design search. In fact, it is often more difficult to obtain a comprehensive and reliable trademark search report for a proposed text logo or an integrated combination logo as compared to a symbol logo or a physically separable combination logo. Because of design coding challenges, it is easier for a trademark searcher to locate prior marks of potential concern when one's proposed logo comprises a stylized star or shell design than a text logo that may be unknowingly or unintentionally similar, not to the word, but to the color combination and lettering style employed by, say, Coca-Cola, Yahoo!, Google, or Ebay: 

For more information on the importance of trademark clearance, see my previous post entitled "Look Before You Leap! The Dangers of Not Clearing Brands Before First Use."

With respect to ease of registration, if the brand name is physically integrated and part of or even touching the non-verbal design elements, in many cases, the non-verbal design elements cannot be separately registered as a trademark. To register the non-verbal design elements of an integrated combination logo, it must be shown that those non-verbal elements actually perform a trademark function to indicate source separate and apart from the verbal element. This can be difficult to establish if the verbal element is always present within the design. On the other hand, the Trademark Office views a non-integrated combination logo as comprising at least three different marks, each of which may be registered alone: (1) The word or words; (2) the non-verbal symbol; and (3) the combination of verbal and non-verbal elements. By being able to register each element separately at the outset, even during a time when they are always used together, it facilitates the trademark owner's ability to eventually "wean the symbol away from the name" with added confidence. 

For more information on the importance and benefits of federal registration, see my previous post entitled "The Power of Federal Trademark Registration Remains Strong in Tough Economic Times."

With respect to ease of enforcement, assuming each element of a physically separable combination logo has been registered, enforcement is enhanced too, for the reasons already stated above. Having each element registered separately, eventhough they may only be used together, permits the Trademark Office to refuse registration of later marks that are confusingly similar to either the verbal or non-verbal element. In the event the Trademark Office doesn't see a conflict for some unexplained reason, the non-integrated combination logo format also enhances the trademark owner's ability to challenge registration of another's mark that may not be confusingly similar to the combined elements, but to one of them.

More than a few have weighed in on the baseball team's controversial continued use of "Chief Wahoo": Here ("Mascot League Baseball"), here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

It apparently took a Yankees fan to point out the "irony" of the "Cleveland Indians" signing a sixteen-year deal in 2008 to play ball in "Progressive Field" -- the re-named "Jacobs Field" (in favor of the well-known and deep-pocketed Cleveland-based insurance company).

In addition, now that the team has relocated spring training to a new ball park in Goodyear, Arizona, it appears the team is de-emphasizing the Chief Wahoo logo, in favor of the innocuous "I" script and "C" block logos, although the team spokesman maintains that "Chief Wahoo" is not being "phased out." Could the diminished use of "Wahoo" have anything to do with the fact that Arizona has more Native American residents than every other state besides California and Oklahoma? Could it be the team is trying to save a little face with a gradual phase out, or re-brand, if you will?

Finally, the team's MLB website shows a fairly sparse use of "Chief Wahoo," so why hang on at all?

Bottom line: If the team wants to save just a little bit of face, it ought to stop showing Wahoo's face altogether, period.

Last thought, for now, concerning non-verbal logos, really:

Don't brand owners need to "name" their non-verbal logos, especially those that "stand alone," otherwise how can anyone spread the word, so to speak?

For example, Nike seems to have figured this out, owning federal trademark registrations for the word SWOOSH (in connection with footwear and clothing items), separate and apart from what is known as the "Swoosh" Logo. 

McDonalds similarly owns a federal registration for the words THE GOLDEN ARCHES for restaurant services.

I'm not sure there is a suitable, brief and unique name for the Wenger logo shown above, perhaps that is part of the reason for the "FROM THE MAKER OF THE GENUINE SWISS ARMY KNIFE" tag line?

Wenger describes their non-verbal logo in recent trademark filings this way: "The mark consists of a chrome colored cross on a red square with rounded edges, outlined by a chrome colored square with rounded edges."

I think this just proved my point.