Color Trademarks, Red Knobs, and Secondary Meaning

Posted on February 22, 2010 by Steve Baird

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.

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.

Rolling Out the Red Carpet -- More On Branding Athletic Turf & Trademarks

Posted on February 1, 2010 by Steve Baird

In December, you may recall, I blogged about Boise State's federal registration of the color blue as applied to athletic field turf, known to many as Smurf Turf. At the time, I wondered out loud whether Boise State's success in the U.S. Trademark Office might lead others to follow along this trademark path?

Hat tip again to Brad Frazer, for letting us know that last week, apparently inspired by Boise State's success and notoriety, Eastern Washington University, located in Cheny, Washington, announced its "Red Turf" project for its Woodward Field, shown below:

The plan, supported by a generous $500,000 gift from Eagle alum Michael Roos of the Tennessee Titans and his wife Katherine, has targeted completion in time for the opening of the 2010 football season, if all goes well with additional fund-raising efforts. The red artificial turf promises to be the first of its kind, not just in NCAA Division I football, but in the entire country, so the path appears clear for claiming, or I should say, at least working toward claiming, exclusive rights in the red-colored athletic turf.

Given how some have predicted this plan promises to cause a run on multi-colored turf by publicity-starved schools, I'm left wondering whether Eastern Washington will seek ownership and file an application to federally-register red in the same way that Boise State did with blue. Of course, one of the differences between the two is about twenty some years of use and notoriety.

A long period of substantially exclusive use goes a long way to establishing acquired distinctiveness when dealing with non-traditional trademarks such as single-color marks. Along those lines, it is worth noting the U.S. Supreme Court has indicated in Wal-Mart v. Samara that single colors can never be considered inherently distinctive, so Eastern Washington would have to establish secondary meaning or acquired distinctiveness in the red turf, as Boise State did with blue, before any registration on the Principal Register could issue.

In addition, since the proposed single color red turf mark is not in use yet, Eastern Washington could file an intent-to-use application, and assuming it could acquire distinctiveness or establish secondary meaning in the red-colored turf during the pendency of the application, the filing date would relate back and serve as its nationwide constructive use date for national priority purposes. The problem with not filing such an application is, if another athletic program were to do so before Eastern Washington was able to complete the project and provide athletic events on the new turf, it may find itself in the undesirable position as the second-comer for priority purposes, even though it might have been the first to come up with the idea for a red turf athletic field.

Sounds to me like a job for a team of creative trademark, marketing and PR types, to accelerate the period of time needed to develop the necessary evidence of acquired distinctiveness.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Surface Level Branding Runs Deep on This Athletic Field

Posted on December 14, 2009 by Steve Baird

Mark Image

To sports fans of this university, December has been a big month because their beloved team finished the 2009 regular football season undefeated (13-0) once again, winning yet another post-season BCS bowl game bid. Next month will be even bigger news if their WAC team happens to defeat TCU in the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl. To trademark types, however, the biggest news of all is what this university was able to accomplish last month at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

You might be surprised to learn (I was) that the above image is the drawing associated with the single color trademark ("the mark consists of the color blue used on the artificial turf in the stadium") that this university was able to federally register in connection with: "Entertainment services, namely, the presentation of intercollegiate sporting events and sports exhibitions rendered in a stadium, and through the media of radio and television broadcasts and the global communications network." Hat tip to Brad Frazer of the Hawley Troxell firm, in Boise, Idaho.

Quick question, how does one render entertainment services in connection with a single-color trademark through the "media of radio broadcasts"? Does oral reference to the blue turf on the radio constitute use of the mark in commerce?

In any event, the identity of the university in question, is revealed below the jump, and it is, of course:

Boise State, a/k/a the Broncos, a/k/a The Blue, whose teams play on what some call Smurf Turf in Bronco Stadium (not to be confused with Invesco Field at Mile High, where the similarly-colored blue and orange Denver Broncos play their NFL football games on regular green, grass turf):

File:Bronco Stadium Blue Turf October 31 2009.JPG

As interesting as the registration of the blue turf trademark is, the timing of the decision to federally register is as well. Why? On September 9, 2008, the NCAA reported that Division II University of New Haven (located in Connecticut) "adorned their new blue field -- one of only two in the country -- at Ralph F. DellaCamera Jr. Stadium with a 50 x 30-foot Charger logo September 8 in preparation for the return of the UNH football program and membership in the Northeast-10 Conference." Two weeks later, on September 23, 2008, Boise State filed for federal registration of the blue-colored turf trademark, claiming over twenty years of continuous use. Given this timing, is there a battle of smurf turfs likely on the horizon?

If so, here's a question to ponder: Since Boise State didn't seek federal registration until after UNH commenced use of its own blue-colored athletic turf in West Haven, Connecticut, Boise State doesn't enjoy the substantial federal registration benefit of nationwide constructive until its later filing date, so the question becomes, does Boise State have enforceable prior common law rights in West Haven?

Boise State's Bronco Stadium apparently has sported blue-colored artificial turf since 1986, the first being blue-colored AstroTurf (1986-2001), then blue-colored AstroPlay turf (2002-2007), and finally, blue-colored FieldTurf (2008-present). So, might the answer depend on how many Boise State home games have been televised and/or viewed over the years in West Haven, Connecticut, or might it depend on whether The Humanitarian Bowl has been televised and/or viewed in a consistent enough manner in West Haven to acquire distinctiveness and establish prior common law rights there?

While it may be hard to imagine that Boise State home football games have been consistently and sufficiently aired or viewed in Connecticut to establish prior common law rights there, Boise State's Bronco Stadium also has been home to The Humanitarian Bowl since 1997, so there has been more than a decade of post-season bowl-game football played on Boise State's blue-colored turf. Now, how many of those games have been aired or viewed in West Haven, is beyond me.

With respect to validity, might there be a question of some yet-to-be-identified functionality, since one artificial turf manufacturer reports that "blue" is "probably the most popular" color choice for artificial turf? It would be interesting to explore the reason for this popularity.

On a broader note, will Boise State's success in the U.S. Trademark Office lead others to follow along this trademark path?

I, for one, would love to watch the beloved teams from my alma mater, The Iowa Hawkeyes, play football in Kinnick Stadium on a yellow-colored turf -- perhaps canary yellow, and 3M could sponsor a new post-season bowl game (not that we need another), let's call it The Post-It Bowl!

The problem is, of course, in January, and even December, Kinnick Stadium is likely to look rather white no matter what the underlying turf color may be.  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Does Your Eye Spy A Canary?

Posted on November 2, 2009 by Steve Baird

A couple of weeks ago I posted an Accountemps billboard advertisement that prominently features what appears to be a 3M Post-it brand removable adhesive note, and I asked whether it constitutes fair use, and whether 3M's permission is necessary to run the advertisement, since 3M owns a federal trademark registration for the color "canary yellow" in connection with these notes.

As the comments to that post reveal, some recognize the billboard image as a 3M Post-it note, and believe permission should be required to run the ad, others were unaware that 3M has a trademark on the color canary yellow, others believe that yellow adhesive notes are generic, and several apparently believe that even if the billboard depicts a 3M canary yellow Post-it note, no permission should be required. In fact, several pointed out that yellow adhesive notes can be obtained from a variety of sources, raising the question of how close those shades of yellow are to 3M's trademarked canary yellow?

So, just for you, I collected six different pads of yellow-colored adhesive notes and fixed them to a dark green background for a little follow-up quiz. Can you identify any "canary yellow" and name the sources of the six different yellow adhesive notes shown below (answers below the jump)?

(A) Unknown (unmarked yellow-colored removable adhesive note);

(B) 3M's Post-it brand "Pop-up Notes" (packaging states: The color "Canary Yellow" is a trademark of 3M);

(C) Target's Work.org brand "self-stick removable notes" (no reference to color or trademark);

(D) 3M's Post-it brand "Recycled Notes" (packaging makes no reference to canary yellow color or trademarks);

(E) Highland brand "Self-Stick Removable Notes" (packaging refers to Highland as being a trademark of "Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing" -- no reference to 3M, and no reference to "canary yellow" or color trademarks); and

(F) Office Max's "Self-stick Pop-up Notes" (no reference to color or trademark).

All of this raises a few more questions worth asking:

(1) Since (B) and (D) appear to both be 3M's Canary Yellow, why doesn't 3M mention the trademarked color on packaging for its Recycled Notes? Are the Recylced Notes not Canary Yellow?

(2) Since (A), (C), and (F) closely resemble the yellow shade of 3M's Highland brand (E), does that mean 3M views the Highland color and these others to fall outside the legal scope of protection for the Canary Yellow trademark?

(3) Where should a court draw the line in comparing color shades for purposes of determining likelihood of confusion? How should this be measured, by wavelength, colorimeter device, Pantone matching system? Doesn't a note's clear cellophane wrapper affect one's visual perception of color? What about in-store lighting differences, won't they affect one's visual perception too? How about when outside on billboard advertising, could infringement depend on the daily weather? Sunny days infringing, cloudy days non-infringing? Lastly, what about on-line uses of color? I found that I perceived the above collage of six different color squares differently depending on which computer and monitor I viewed them from.

Has any of this changed your view one way or the other about whether Accountemps needs 3M's permission to run the billboard ad?
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Fair Use of 3M's Post-It Note?

Posted on October 19, 2009 by Steve Baird

This billboard ad has appeared in various locations around the Twin Cities for some time now. 

Each time I saw it, I wondered whether it would be the last, given how vigilant 3M is in protecting its various trademarks and other intellectual property. This time, I had a camera handy to capture it.

Now it's time for some questions.

Is there any question that this Accountemps billboard advertisement prominently features a Post-It brand note?

After all, 3M owns a non-traditional single-color trademark and federal trademark registration for the color canary yellow "used over the entire surface" of "stationery notes containing adhesive on one side for attachment to surfaces." In case you're wondering, at least one dictionary defines "canary yellow" as "a light yellow." Other 3M trademark registrations related to the Post-It brand refer more broadly to "yellow," and are not limited to "canary yellow," here, here, here.

This billboard ad appears to be yet another example of a well-known, if not famous, non-traditional trademark being used in another's advertising, not for comparison purposes, but as a prop to help sell goods or services totally unrelated to those of the non-traditional trademark owner. Is the use necessary? Is it appropriate? Should it be considered a fair use, if made without permission? Why didn't Accountemps make the stationery note prop appear in a color that is not trademarked?

Is the use likely to cause confusion, keeping in mind that actionable confusion is not limited solely to confusion about origin or source, but also protects consumers against likely confusion about affiliation, connection, association, sponsorship, or approval?

Is the look of 3M's Post-It note a famous trademark? If so, it is entitled to dilution protection too. Section 43(c) of the Lanham Act protects against "dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment of the famous mark, regardless of the presence or absence of actual or likely confusion, of competition, or of actual economic injury." If everyone started to depict a Post-It note in their ads would that tend to blur the distinctiveness of 3M's trademark or strenghten the brand? I'm thinking that trademark types and marketing types might have different takes on this question.

As you may recall, we previously have discussed the implications of using another's non-traditional trademark in advertising: Levi's Double Arcuate Design trademark and the shape of a Corvette from the 1960s.

So what do you think, does Accountemps need 3M's permission for this billboard advertisement?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Kimberly-Clark and The Color Purple: Keeping Trademark Scope Current and Consistent with Business Scope

Posted on June 15, 2009 by Steve Baird

Kimberly-Clark® is no stranger to securing federal registrations for its various non-traditional trademarks. No doubt, these unconventional trademark assets are of great commercial value and an important part of K-C's evolving business strategy and intellectual property portfolio.

My previous post about the oval-shaped facial tissue container K-C was able to federally register in November 2007 is linked here. That post also discussed their current non-traditional trademark application covering a "textured alternating dot pattern appearing on the surface of the carton of disposable paper hand-towels." By way of update, it was initially refused registration in April, but the application remains pending, as can be seen here, with no response due until October 2009.

Kimberly-Clark® has non-traditional, single color trademarks too:  

Kimberly Clark Safeskin Purple Nitrile Exam GlovesSAFESKIN® Purple Nitrile Exam Gloves, Beaded Cuff, Small, Purple. Box of 100                           

In fact, I recently came across a pair of their federal trademark registrations for "the color purple," one obtained in 2002 and the other in 2006. The differences in the description of goods between these two "color purple" registrations help make a point that is quite important to both marketing and trademark types, namely, the importance of keeping registered trademark scope current and consistent with the underlying and evolving business scope.

In considering this pair of color registrations, the more recent 2006 "purple" registration broadly covers "disposable nitrile gloves for general use." The phrase "for general use" is a big deal -- and worth the additional registration -- because it adds significant scope to the narrower federally-registered rights K-C obtained back in 2002 for the same color mark in connection with the far more limited laboratory, medical and surgical uses.

It is often argued that customers from the more narrowly defined laboratory, medical and surgical consuming groups are more "sophisticated" and less prone to trademark confusion than those in the general public, so when marketing channels grow and sales begin to expand from these more "sophisticated" purchasers to also include those in the general public, it is important to make sure the registered rights extend protection to this more vulnerable and larger customer base too.

Moral of the Story: Trademark types, make sure to keep pace with the business and marketing types.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,