Shaq is Attacking to Protect His Likeness

Posted on January 28, 2010 by Tiffany Blofield

You may have heard the phrase “Shaq Attaq” referring to the famous NBA player and gold medal winner Shaquille O’Neal’s basketball skills.  While he played basketball in Arizona for the Phoenix Suns, the Arizonians nicknamed him “The Big Cactus” and “The Big Shaqtus” in reference to the combination of Mr. O’Neal and an Arizona cactus.

You may recall that I wrote about former NFL players suing the NFL over their likenesses a couple of months ago “Purple People Eater Jim Marshall & Friends Take on the NFL.” ESPN used O’Neal’s likeness when it aired commercials featuring O’Neal encountering a cactus bearing his face in the desert. Before doing so, however, ESPN obtained Mr. O’Neal’s company, Mine O‘Mine, Inc.’s, permission to use the mark. Mine O’ Mine has the exclusive rights to use and sublicense Mr. O’Neal’s, image and likeness and to register, exploit and protect Shaq and Shaq-formative trademarks.  In connection therewith, the company has a pending application for the “Shaq Attaq” mark for apparel.  

Mr. O’Neal is moving from the basketball court to a different court. True Fan Logo, Inc.’s shaqtus.net website is an online retail store under the SHAQTUS ORANGE CLOTHING COMPANY mark. Playing off the ESPN commercial, the store features an animated character in the form of a cactus with O’Neal’s facial features and a basketball jersey with Mr. O’Neal’s number. This company tried to shut down the ESPN commercial claiming its ownership of the Shaqtus mark. ESPN ignored this request.  However, Mr. O’Neal is not ignoring the company. Indeed, Mr. O’Neal recently sued True Fan Logo, Inc., and individuals Dan Mortenson and Michael Calamese. According to the complaint they have registered and are using shaqtus.com and shaqtus.net.  

A PDF of this complaint is attached. Read more about the complaint here. The complaint  includes claims of trademark infringement, unfair competition, trademark dilution, cyber-squatting and others. Shaq often wins on the basketball court. Now, he is hoping for a win in a Las Vegas court of law.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Request Info

See our or enter your information below to send us a quick message and we'll reply in one business day or less.

Your privacy is ensured. We will never sell, disclose, or trade contact information.

A Shack by Any Other Name...

Posted on August 18, 2009 by Guest Blogger

RadioShack recently introduced a new name, rebranding its stores "The Shack", which now adorns their retail environment and marketing efforts.

The change was prompted by a desire to update the 88-year-old brand as they transition to mobile phone and wireless products without losing brand equity and mind-share, according to RadioShack. As Dan Neil of the Los Angeles Times mused, "For a company that wants to talk up its expertise in mobile phones, no one seems to have noticed that mobile phones are radios!"

To officially roll out the new, shortened, and supposedly hipper moniker, RadioShack staged "The Shack Summer Netogether" in NY and SF August 6 - 8, broadcasting the event live via "massive laptops" located in Times Square and Justin Herman Plaza, respectively. Video was streamed live on their Facebook page and their redesigned web site.

The current trend to truncate brand names is puzzling. Is this an attempt to beguile the text-message obsessed youth market, where everything is "abrv8d"? Or drive up sales through brand-brevity because we lack long attention spans?

I understand distilling a brand to its essence. Coke and FedEx are good examples, but Pizza Hut and Circuit City are not.

This past June, Pizza Hut sliced "Pizza" from its boxes and select stores, creating "The Hut". Perhaps this was to reflect the expanded menu, which includes pasta and other non-pizza items, or to be more in sync with the "text message generation" as stated by the Pizza hut Chief Marketing Officer Brian Niccol. But "The Hut" lacks uniqueness, and the food half of their name, which defines them. Is this really something they can own? What other huts can you think of? The jury is still out with this decision.

As for Circuit City, which shuttered its 567 U.S. stores last January, truncating its name didn't provide a panacea for its fiscal ills. In 2007, a new store format was introduced with a new, shorter name -- "The City". The new, "circuit-less" name didn't result in solvency. It is interesting to note that after Systemax Inc. acquired the brand, the Circuit City moniker was reinstituted.

Back to "The Shack". For RadioShack there is a need to compete with Best Buy, the numero uno of electronics retailers. But I doubt we’ll see Best Buy rebrand itself as "Buy" anytime soon.

One of the weaknesses with the word “shack” is its alternative meaning, shanty, a crude hut or cabin. This is hardly a positive association for a venerable, and once omnipresent brand, trying to freshen up its image.

"The Shack" also faces derogatory non-trademark meanings, much like Kool-Aid and Spam have acquired, as discussed by Steve Baird here. One blogger suggested images of a dark and isolated place where very bad things happen, and it is a little too close to "The Shaft" for my liking.

Cycling fans such as me wonder about the recently announced Team RadioShack Pro-Tour cycling team. Will Lance Armstrong, George Hincapie, Levi Leipheimer, and Andreas Klöden actually end up riding for "Team Shack"?

Can RadioShack truly own "The Shack"? What should Shaq have to say about this? Should he become the next spokesman for "The Shack" in between Comcast ads? Or maybe the B-52s could grind out a revised version of Love Shack?

A name or a logo is not a brand. The entire experience you have with a company defines the brand. So changing the name and doing "thumbthing" cute with the logo, isn't addressing the brand holistically.

I question the wisdom of truncating RadioShack at a time the company is trying to resurrect its faltering brand, particularly if "The Shack" moniker lends itself to negative brand associations. This is a time for clarity, not confusion or misdirection.

Performing a "truncatomy" to gain relevancy risks generating non-trademark meanings sure to vex RadioShack brand managers and lawyers, and ultimately, perhaps, render "The Shack" irrelevant.

—Randall Hull, The Br@nd Ranch®
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,