Duets Blog : Creativity and the Law: DuetsBlog

Do Other Single Letter Chewing Gum Brands Exist, or is it Just B S?

Well, apparently it's not just B S, even for Cadbury Adams, who has actually registered a stylized letter "C" for chewing gum, apparently to reinforce the first letter in the long-lasting Chiclets brand, here and here. Having said that, the specimens on record at the Trademark Office don't appear to scream "C" -- at least to me. Unlike the B and S brands, where these single letters appear front and center, standing alone, the stylized "C" trademark appears quite intertwined with the design elements of the packaging, making it difficult to discern the claimed "C" as a separate trademark.

In case you were wondering, Cadbury's major competitor Wrigley's (now part of Mars) currently appears more interested in putting single number brands (namely, the single numeral 5) front and center instead of single letter brands, although it apparently has flirted with more subtle use of a stylized W on the surface of certain gum sticks (consisting of "one or more 'W' designs substantially as shown in the drawing" below on the left):

Honestly, I always wondered what those "tire tracks" were on Juicy Fruit gum sticks.

Anyway, soon we may see how broadly Wrigley's views its scope of rights in "W" since the Walgreens' stylized W mark (shown above on the right) is set to publish for opposition next month, and within the long list of intended goods and services is "breath freshener . . . gum" and "smoking cessation . . . chewing gum". So, stay tuned here for more on this point.

Yet, others seem to prefer the combination of a single numeral and a single letter: N-2 and N-4. Indeed, if V-8 vegetable juice ever considers a brand extension into chewing gum (how likely is that?), it will have to contend with the already-registered V6 brand.

Wrigley's also owns a stylized "O" trademark used in connection with its Orbit brand gum, so, Oprah might have to think twice about launching a chewing gum brand sporting her brand of O anytime soon.

Legal Ramifications of Single Letter Brands?

There are a few legal take-aways for single letter brands worth mentioning here:

1. Don't assume you can truncate an existing brand down to a single letter without conducting the necessary trademark due diligence;
2. Designing a highly stylized first letter in a brand name (that is styled differently from the remaining letters in the name) may permit the owner to obtain a separate federal trademark registration covering the highly stylized single letter by itself (as Cadbury Adams did with the stylized B in Bubblicious some five years ago), even though -- at the time -- it is only used as the first letter in the brand name (as was the case for Bubblicious);
3. Utilizing the strategy in (2) above may help facilitate and protect the possibility of later pursuing a migration of the single letter from the brand name (as Cadbury Adams did with B Bursts years after filing for B), and then to a stand alone, front and center, fully-truncated single letter brand, as depicted above;
4. Taking a more gradual approach toward truncation and migration might help reduce risk of a conflict, especially in a crowded field, assuming it is pursued along with the design and registration strategy in (2) above; and 
5. The scope of rights in a single letter brand will be impacted by third party uses of the same letter: The more crowded the field, the narrower the scope.

So, to illustrate the due diligence concern stated above in (1), if Trident decides to truncate itself to T, it may have to contend with this T and that T (stylized). And, if Gatorade Gum returns to the scene, it may have to consider G & Design, G-1, at least, before assuming it automatically may truncate to G for chewing gum.

With respect to scope of rights, apparently, Cadbury Adam's Bubblicious beat Bubble Yum, Big League Chew, and Bazooka in truncating to B, but Cadbury Adam's B, nevertheless, coexists with B-FRESH, and may soon coexist with Grupo Bimbo's B logo too.

It remains to be seen how many more single letter chewing and bubble gum brands "pop up" and whether any confectioners "expanding" in this direction will "blow it" by migrating or truncating their brands to single letters without doing -- in advance -- the necessary due diligence. Of course, the timing of the due diligence may unwrap the difference between a successful "no-face-sticking bubble gum" brand from one that leaves a rather sticky mess on your face when it finally bursts.

Before closing, and back to the title of this post for a moment, for anyone wondering whether the use of B S in the title of this post might be a tad too racy, first of all, it is an acronym with many possible meanings, so you're responsible for the one you decide to apply, but perhaps more importantly, I have confirmed that the Trademark Office readily registers marks consisting of or comprising B.S., so long as it is not spelled out in full as a "profane" or "scandalous" term (as Red Bull apparently attempted to do, here): (1) BS is federally-registered for jewelry and leather goods, (2) I.T. WITHOUT THE B.S. is federally-registered for maintenance and repair of computer networks, (3) BS EVER & Design is federally-registered for steel-wire, (4) BS (stylized) is federally registered for certification services, (5) NO B.S. is federally-registered for a marketing newsletter, (6) B S & Design is federally-registered for a swimming pool drain cover, (7) BS & Design is federally-registered for insurance services,  (8) B:S is federally-registered for footwear, (9) NO B.S. was federally-registered for telephone calling card services, (10) B.S. METER was federally-registered for a toy talking telephone, (11) CAN THE B.S. was federally-registered for printed message cards, and (12) a mark consisting of "a stitched letter 'B' on the left back pocket and a stitched letter 'S' on the right back pocket of a garmet" was approved by the Trademark Office.

Just so you know, even a mark having the words "NO B.S. MORTGAGE, LLC," and depicting a "bull with blue eyes and a gold nose ring holding a roll of white toilet paper and sitting on a white toilet," was not refused registration under Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, despite that provision's prohibition on the registration of marks that consist of or comprise scandalous and immoral matter.

Now, when it comes to living human beings, it is hard not to think of Oprah Winfrey, Donald Trump, and Martha Stewart (this Martha image demonstrates the dynamic and elastic nature of a personal brand), when considering truly iconic personal brands that are also legally protected as trademarks: Oprah for a variety of housewares and personal care items, Donald Trump for fragrances, The Donald for prepared alcoholic cocktails, Donald J. Trump Signature Collection for a variety of personal care items, and Martha Stewart for all kinds of houseware items.

Having said all that, one might ask whether the notion of "personal branding" has been taken a bit too far when this past week, the passing of Michael Jackson, Farrah Fawcett, and Ed McMahon, is referred to collectively as the "Death of Three Personal Brands."

I suspect that forms of "personal branding" have been around for ages, but it only appears to have acquired the name a decade ago when it apparently was coined by author Tom Peters in 1997. By the way, Tom Peters will certainly want to keep his personal brand distinct from one-letter-away Tom Petters.

Over the last decade, Personal Branding has become quite the cottage industry for consultants. If you're interested, you might check out: Dan Schawbel author of Me 2.0, Personal Branding Blog and Personal Branding Magazine; Jeffrey Scott Sherman's White Paper entitled "Creating a Truly Money Making Asset the Art of Personal Branding"; Brenda Bence author of "How You are Like Shampoo"; William Arruda author of "Career Distinction: Stand Out By Building Your Brand"; and Colin Wright author of "Personal Branding: The Least You Need to Know."

One of the universal truths about personal branding is that you don't need to read about yourself in the tabloids or even own a federal trademark registration to possess a personal brand: You, me, Joe the Plumber, and even June the Trademark Paralegal, all have personal brands to build.

Indeed, a few recent trademark paralegal job postings have brought to vibrant life the critical importance of personal branding even to trademark types: Both the TTABlog and the Trademark Blog recently posted job openings for "rock star" and "fantastic" trademark paralegals. How long until we start to see cautions in these job listings like: Eeyores and Piglets need not apply?

In case you're wondering, the inspiration for this post came from Holiday Inn's re-branding effort with the above H logo. A three-year re-branding effort that apparently started back in 2007, but has only recently shown itself in suburban Minneapolis. It got me thinking how Holiday Inn must have had single-letter trademark envy to move in this truncated direction because when I think of single-letter hotel brands, only W comes to mind (at least before starting this post). 

W Hotels has done a very nice job with its branding, it seems to me, especially with the recent remodel of historic Foshay Tower in downtown Minneapolis. It's interesting, however, that W seems unmoved by a host of others using and registering "its letter" in connection with other hotels, here (Wyndham), here (Woodfin), here (Chickasaw Nation), here (The Westbury in London), here (Watermark), and here (Willard), especially since Starwood, the owner of W Hotels, owns the letter W as a trademark without any type or style limitations. Perhaps W is unmoved because at least some of these appear to predate W, begging the question of how Starwood was able to register the letter W with no type or style limitations in the first place.

In addition, Holiday Inn is certainly not the only or the first with a hotel or plans for a hotel to think about truncating its name to the single letter H in a trademark and logo, see here (Hilton), here (Hersha), here (Hansa Urbana), here (Hearthstone), here (Haute), here (Heritage), and here (Heidi Klum).

Turns out, lots of other hotels have truncated their names into single-letter logos too, which makes me wonder about what the scope of their respective rights might be.

Having said that, some letters may not be well-suited for hotel branding at all. Given that hotels are routinely graded (typically on number of stars), I haven't checked, but I assume the letters B through D and F are available, for obvious branding reasons. And, sorry Gatorade, flanking the flunking or failing letter F, at least in Malasia, G appears taken, and Westin recently grabbed a stylized E, with Carlisle taking an interest in E too, not to mention Embassy Suites and its E.

As you may have guessed, Renaissance is not the only R out there in the hotel world (here (Ramada), here (Ravel), here (Regent), here (Registry), and here (Rockresorts)), but U Hotels & Resorts appears to be surprisingly unique, as does O Hotel. So, here we may have identified at least one caution for Oprah to consider carefully, down the road, in the event she sets her sights on extending her brand of O into the hotel industry.

Last, but certainly not least, as Gatorade must have learned when it truncated to G, blogged previously here, it is not easy to own a single-letter as a trademark, at least one that enjoys any meaningful scope.