Duets Blog : Creativity and the Law: DuetsBlog

Seth Godin has an amazing knack for creating and spreading ideas that matter, mostly really good ones, by the way. I always look forward to his daily riffs and I have been known to spread some of his important ideas too when they overlap with things I happen to care a lot about.

When it comes to Mr. Godin's trademark advice, however, I'm not feeling it, sorry (that wasn't an apology either). Some of it is, well, lacking an indispensable quality. Even when it is accompanied by this witty disclaimer: "I'm not a lawyer. I don't even play one on TV. If you rely on my legal advice, you're getting exactly what you paid for."

The problem is, sometimes you end up getting much less than you anticipated and actually end up much worse off, when you follow down even a "free" path based on misunderstandings and misconceptions, at least as they relate to one's legal rights.

I'll never forget one evening watching Geraldo Live during the O.J. trial, more than fifteen years ago, as a young trademark lawyer. There was quite a stir about some trademark applications Mr. Simpson had filed for O.J. Simpson, Juice, and O.J., around the time of O.J. Simpson being charged with the murder of Nicole Simpson. I recall one of Simpson's defense lawyers, the brilliant constitutional lawyer Alan Dershowitz, rebuffing criticism about the trademark filings, unwittingly contending that Simpson never intended to use or benefit from those applications, he simply filed them to make sure no one else could. My jaw dropped when I heard this, because it provided a legal basis to immediately invalidate each one of the applications. In addition, had anyone followed this defensive "legal advice," their trademark filings would have been wasted money and considered invalid and void ab initio, since U.S. trademark law requires that an applicant must have a bona fide intention to use the mark on each and every good and service listed in the application.

Back to Godin on Trademark*, and even more recently, a couple of months ago Seth Godin wrote about how to protect your ideas in the digital age:

One way is to misuse trademark law. With the help of search engines, greedy lawyers who charge by the letter are busy sending claim letters to anyone who even comes close to using a word or phrase they believe their client 'owns'. News flash: trademark law is designed to make it clear who makes a good or a service. It's a mark we put on something we create to indicate the source of the thing, not the inventor of a word or even a symbol.

While there are certainly some greedy trademark lawyers in the world, and some that overreach on behalf of their client brand owners, even honorable and ethical trademark attorneys worth their hourly rate know that federal protection against dilution for truly famous marks was added to U.S. trademark law about fifteen years ago. At least for marks satisfying the difficult fame standard, these kinds of trademarks come darn close to owning the brand name in gross, that is, in connection with any goods or services.

For the garden variety and non-famous trademark, the scope of rights is defined by whether or not there is a Likelihood of Confusion.

With respect to what trademark law was designed for, and while I don't consider this to be a news flash any longer, well prior to dilution protection being added, U.S. trademark law was amended to make clear that much more than confusion as to source is covered. All the way back in 1962 the Lanham Trademark Act was amended by striking language requiring confusion, mistake or deception of "purchasers as to the source of origin of such goods and services." Moreover, a much broader scope of confusion protection was codified in 1989 in Lanham Act Section 43(a), which protects against trademark likelihood of confusion not only as to source, but as to affiliation, connection, sponsorship, association, and/or approval. This additional scope of trademark protection makes perfect sense given the current commercial realities of trademark licensing, franchises, co-branding, affiliate marketing, and OEM relationships.

I'm not saying Seth Godin's opinions about trademarks are Out of Bounds, I'm simply saying some of them are out of date.

With a little luck, and assuming I can get in enough time in front of my Stuart Smalley mirror between now and next week, I'll explore another misconception or misgiving it appears Mr. Godin has about the registration of trademarks:

Some lawyers will get all excited and encourage (demand!) that you register your trademark. This involves paying a bunch of money, filing a bunch of forms and earning an ® after your name instead of the ™. While the ® does give you some benefits by the time you get to court, it doesn't actually increase the value of your trademark. And you can wait. So, when you come up with a great name, just ™ it.

So, stay tuned.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (5)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I’m thrilled to have this platform to vent about a long-standing beef: awkward, made-up product and company names. Trademark lawyers call them coined.

Among the worst offenders are automobiles, technology and finance. When I was a kid, cars had names like Roadmaster, Thunderbird and Catalina. Now a prospective car buyer has to wade through an alphanumeric sea of names like IS, GLK350 and FX35.

I don’t blame trademark lawyers … exactly. But the need for a strong, legally defensible name no doubt accounts for some of the odd lexicography we see.

I reserve most of my reproach for the naming consultants who come up with these clunkers and the corporate executives who think that a vague name containing an X will magically transform their company into a paragon of the new economy.

See if you can match these 10 names to the products or services they represent. Warning: One of them is a complete fake, made up by me!

1. Celero                                   a. dental insurance

2. Tolamba                               b. private mortgage banking

3. Onvio                                     c. oil and gas operations

4. Fortex                                    d. email relationship manager

5. Xobni                                     e. fake!

6. Opteum                                 f. motion control equipment

7. Contango                              g. trading software

8. Nexxar                                   h. wealth management services

9. Provantis                               i. money transfer services

10. Graxxion                              j. allergy treatment

Answers are below the jump.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The October/November issue of Brand Packaging magazine just hit the streets and I'm deeply honored to say that my piece entitled "A Trademark Touch: Strategies for Owning and Protecting Touchmarks" is this issue's "cover story" (minus the skull and crossbones).

The digital version can be read here. I hope you find it eye-opening in a tactile kind of way.

By the way, I'd love some feedback on it.

What is your favorite touchmark anyway?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In just 96 hours, John Sullivan could be hawking your products. That’s right, John Sullivan. Signed. Sealed. Delivered. No muss, no legal fuss. 

Wait a minute. Who’s John Sullivan? Well, for those living under a rock, he’s the first-year starter at center for the Minnesota Vikings, and a California company named Brand Affinity Technologies has figured out how to make him, and a handful of other mostly B-list NFL players, the newest wave in sports marketing.

Impossible! Can’t be done! John Sullivan hawking my products in just 96 hours? Yup, 96 hours. According to a recent article in the New York Times, Brand Affinity has streamlined the process of celebrity endorsements to something Henry Ford would be proud of. Contracts are standard. And so are the ad treatments, which are shot generically before you attach your brand to complete the campaign. Says a Brand Affinity spokesperson quoted in the article: “A company can contact a player, come to an agreement and the next day the ads could be up.” And it can all be done online.

Well, what fun is that?

Those of us who have toiled in the trenches of marketing recognize that the process of hammering out endorsement contracts and creating first-rate marketing with that newly minted spokesperson usually takes, shall we say, a bit more than four days. 

A well-thought-out contract should explore what’s possible, rather than close the door on the big idea. I’ll let you J.D.s list out all the other reasons why this cookie-cutter approach is flawed from a legal standpoint. From a marketer’s perspective, I view this as the equivalent of propping a brand next to a celebrity cardboard cutout. Sure, it’s good for a chuckle, but does anyone really believe you’re hanging out with that bikini-clad supermodel?

Effective marketing takes integration, collaboration and creativity. And those take time. With all due respect to John Sullivan, that can’t be accomplished by speed-dating your way through a bunch of B-list NFL players.

-Jorg Pierach, Fast Horse

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

Have you ever experienced or observed marketing styles that might be fairly described as high-octane, fast-paced, or perhaps, so hopped-up on Red Bull® or some other energy drink, there is simply no time for meaningful collaboration, much less careful, proactive, strategic thinking or planning? Perhaps a fun, exhilarating experience, but what are the consequences?

If you have, as you might know first hand (or at least imagine), this style can seriously compromise valuable intellectual property rights and protection. You know when the trademark attorney gets the call if this style controls, right? Immediately upon encountering a serious and unfair competitive threat. But in many instances, this will be long after a coherent strategy might have been created, well after packaging is designed and introduced, well after marketing materials are finalized and distributed, long after websites have been launched, and well after all the unknowing, but self-inflicted damage is done. In some cases the resulting damage is manageable and can be repaired, other times it is not, and legal claims that might have been strong and viable suddenly have turned dead-on-arrival.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Trademark types: As promised, here are some of my more detailed thoughts and perspectives (at least for the time being) on the most significant trademark case of the year: In re Bose.

Thanks to Thomson Reuters for asking me to share them with their readers. I look forward to some great dialogue on the likely implications resulting from this long-anticipated trademark fraud decision.

Marketing types: An adversary's ability to cancel your company's trademark registration for fraud just got much more difficult with this important Bose decision. Basically, fraud means fraud again.

Instead of your adversary only needing to prove that you should have known that a material statement made to the Trademark Office actually was false at the time you made it (as was the law applied by the U.S. Trademark Office for the last six years), now, simple negligence is no longer enough to establish trademark fraud, instead, an actual intent-to-deceive the Trademark Office must be proven.

Having said that, despite this revived more difficult-to-prove fraud standard, it is as important as ever to treat the statements or representations you make to the Trademark Office as seriously as ever, and with the utmost solemnity, making sure you truly understand what you are signing so you can actually affirm the truth of those statements and representations.

It probably goes without saying that the apparent simplicity of the electronic trademark forms can be quite deceiving. So, there are no stupid questions when it comes to your understanding before signing electronic form documents that are submitted to the Trademark Office.

UPDATE: ExecSense Webinar on the Bose Decision, now available for purchase. Just so you know, all royalties due to me are being donated to The Ronald McDonald House Charity.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

More than a few trademark types cringe when their clients or others say things like "let's trademark it," "they didn't trademark their logo," or "we don't want to trademark this name," and, when they ask questions like "is it trademarked?" or "is that trademarked software?" or "did we ever trademark our logo?" or "should we be trademarking this packaging?"

Indeed, some have written: “'Trademark' is not a verb. There is no such thing as 'trademarking' a word or phrase." Similar views are expressed here, here, and here.

Perhaps any cringing may result from the fact that the Lanham Act -- the federal trademark statute -- defines the word "trademark" as a noun, not a verb or adjective:

The term "trademark" includes any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof --

(1) used by a person, or

(2) which a person has a bona fide intention to use in commerce and applies to register on the principal register established by this chapter,

to identify and distinguish his or her goods, including a unique product, from those manufactured or sold by others and to indicate the source of the goods, even if that source is unknown.

Section 45 of Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1127.

Turns out though, the words "trademark," "trademarked," and "trademarking," are recognized words with established verb meanings that have formed part of the English language: "(1) To label (a product) with proprietary identification; and (2) to register (something) as a trademark." Moreover, the word "trademarked" has an established adjective meaning too: "labeled with proprietary (and legally registered) identification guaranteeing exclusive use; 'trademarked goods'".

From my perspective, there is no need for cringing or even correction, just further inquiry into how the words "trademark," "trademarked," and "trademarking" are being used.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A brief study in how the Lion's Tap could have had its burger and eaten it too.

I have to say, in the interest of full disclosure, I have an irrational love for the Lion's Tap.

Ever since I worked in Eden Prairie back in the 1990s, I've been hooked. Fast forward the better part of a decade, put our family a cool 35 miles away in Shoreview, and we still find ourselves driving nearly an hour on special occasions to grab a burger.

That's part of what made me so damn mad when I saw McDonald's latest billboards. Who's your patty? For Angus burgers? You've got to be kidding. Lion's Tap is "my" patty, thank you very much! They've had the slogan on their tastefully tacky t-shirts for over four years.

I thought about it though. I know Lion's Tap. But my guess is that only a small smattering of people do (perhaps 3-4% of the Twin Cities population if you were to survey). Who are they going to think came up with the slogan? And if they walked into Lion's Tap tomorrow, who would you think was ripping off whom? That's right. You guessed it.

It bugged me. I was a bit upset. I was ready to come to my restaurant's defense.

Until they sued.

You can read more here, but the fact of the matter is that Lion's Tap decided to run to the courts to remedy what is calls a trademark infringement case.

Here's the problem, instead of coming off as the victim (which you could argue Lion's Tap is), they come off as another coffee-in-the-crotch, show-me-the-money, lawsuit-happy opportunist. Just read some of the news stories and read some of the comments to see what I mean, here, here, and here.

Ick.

Let's explore what Lion's Tap "could have" done differently, and how it might have panned out.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (5)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

For the last month or so I've been following the antics of Twitter as they attempt to assert rights to the word "tweet". Based on their completely inconsistent—one might even say schizophrenic approach, I feel justified in using the word "antics".

Until very recently, Twitter didn't seem to care much about what third-party apps were named. In fact, in a blog post from July 2009, founder Biz Stone said, "Regarding the use of the word Twitter in projects, we are a bit more wary although there are some exceptions here as well. After all, Twitter is the name of our service and our company so the potential for confusion is much higher. When folks ask us about naming their application with "Twitter" we generally respond by suggesting more original branding for their project. This avoids potential confusion down the line."

Note the phrasing: “suggesting more original branding”. What happens if the developers don’t take the suggestion? By allowing so many third party apps to use the name already, they’ve tacitly given permission for others to infringe on their trademark. If they then try to defend their trademark against the new filers, what can they say?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Today is a really, really big day for trademark types.

As many of us have been saying for a couple of years now, trademark fraud (i.e., fraud on the U.S. Trademark Office) continues to be one of the hottest issues facing trademark owners and the attorneys who represent them. Perhaps after today, not so much, but who really knows, we'll see.

For those not already plugged into the issue of trademark fraud, most mark the 2003 decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) in Medinol v. Neuro Vasx, as the starting point for a much lower, and easier to prove, standard of fraud.

After Medinol, if a trademark owner knew or "should have known" it made a material false statement to the Trademark Office, the entire resulting trademark registration was subject to cancellation at any time. Since then, and following the reasoning in Medinol, the TTAB issued numerous decisions granting opposition or cancellation of trademark applications and registrations on fraud grounds, causing trademark owners and their attorneys great concern with what many have called a strict liability standard, not one based upon an actual "intent to deceive" the U.S. Trademark Office. Most of these cases have fallen into the "overinclusive" goods and services category of fraud cases -- basically, cases having sworn statements that the applied-for mark is currently in use in connection with all of the listed goods and services, when in fact, something less than all the goods or services are actually in use with the mark.

For those interested on the development of the trademark fraud issue, here is a pdf of my slides for a talk I gave in January 2008, at LAIPLA's Washington in the West continuing education conference.

As some of you may recall, during several of my talks over the last two years, I have figuratively flashed a yellow light and cautioned that the CAFC -- the TTAB's primary reviewing court --  has not been heard on the subject of trademark fraud for quite some time, and it has not been clear to me that the CAFC actually would endorse the TTAB's easier to prove fraud standard in the Medinol line of cases. Today the CAFC weighed in on the subject.

Earlier today, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) decided In re Bose, a long-anticipated decision on what it takes to establish fraud before the U.S. Trademark Office. In doing so, the CAFC flashed a red light, indicating the TTAB had read "too broadly" prior CAFC precedent that had mentioned the words "should have known," and it specifically reaffirmed "that a trademark is obtained fraudulently under the Lanham Act only if the applicant or registrant knowingly makes a false, material representation with the intent to deceive the PTO," and it further redirected the TTAB: "Unless the challenger can point to evidence to support an inference of deceptive intent, it has failed to satisfy the clear and convincing evidence standard required to establish a fraud claim."

So, after today, trademark fraud still exists, and it can be proven, provided it is "proven to the hilt," with "clear and convincing evidence," leaving "no room for speculation, inference or surmise," and so long as "any doubt must be resolved against the charging party." Basically, "deception must be willful to constitute fraud." [Here is a link to a pdf of the CAFC's Bose decision].

Hat tip to John Welch of the TTABlog for alerting his followers of the CAFC's decision published first thing in the morning today.

My more detailed perspectives about the CAFC's Bose decision will follow later.

Also, stay tuned, because we continue to await the CAFC's fraud decision that it is currently reviewing in Grand Canyon West Ranch, LLC v. Hualapai Tribe.

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

Let's talk turf today, two kinds. OK, maybe three.

First, with Target Field looking more and more like the long-anticipated brand new outdoor home ballpark for the Minnesota Twins, all Twins fans and the local media can think or talk about this week is the new real bluegrass blend turf being installed now (as I type this blog post, in fact, see live webcam here), as it was just transported from Graff's Turf Farms in Fort Morgan, Colorado.

Second, most are looking forward to saying goodbye to the artificial turf of the 27-year old Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome, and have been counting down the final days for some time.

Last, and most importantly for the purposes of this blog, let's talk about the importance of legal turf.

Selecting the legal turf or forum where a trademark dispute or battle is fought in federal court is often a very strategic decision. Litigants not infrequently end up battling over where the dispute will be decided, long before even getting to the substance of their dispute. Certain aspects of the federal trademark laws are interpreted differently around the country, which can lead to what lawyers call "forum shopping," basically, making forum selections based on where the plaintiff believes his or her case will most likely receive a favorable judgment. Indeed, most companies who file trademark lawsuits would prefer to file them close to home (unless forum shopping benefits dictate otherwise), in their own backyard, for that perceived home field advantage, and, because the out-of-state defendant typically ends up needing to hire two sets of lawyers to defend, their usual trademark counsel and local counsel too.

The general legal rule is that the first to file a trademark lawsuit is the one who gets to select the turf where the battle will be decided. There are exceptions to this general rule, perhaps we'll explore those another time. For now, however, suffice it to say, being the first to file, often creates some helpful advantage or at least some leverage to bring the matter to a more favorable amicable resolution. The first-to-file plaintiff is able to make his or her settlement demand, with the comfort of knowing that -- if it is not accepted -- he or she already has secured the place for the dispute to go forward. If it happens to be a place where the defendant does not want to litigate, for one reason or another, this can facilitate perhaps better settlement terms for the first-to-file plaintiff.

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

Recently, I stopped in a neighborhood coffee shop for an iced coffee. It was a fabulous little coffee shop in a neighborhood I don’t frequent and whose name I won’t mention. Anyway, while perusing the menu, I noticed they offered a blended coffee drink under the name Frappuccino.  Noting the teenager behind the counter, I did not feel it would be beneficial to provide a trademark tutorial or a warning as to how Starbucks would react to this use of its arguably famous trademark for identical goods. 

Sipping my delicious frozen beverage, I could not help thinking it would be a good blog topic to discuss the importance of trademark policing and enforcement.   Obviously, this is not always an easy task and these types of uses are especially difficult to detect.  In fact, Starbucks has been very active in protecting its trademark rights, even against small, mom-and-pop coffee shops which it discovers are using a similar name or logo mark such as Conga Coffee & Tea (similarly shaped green logo mark).  However, identifying an infringing name of a shop is one thing, but identifying an infringing menu item is a far more difficult task. 

Companies spend a lot of time and money developing brand names for products and services and many companies have hundreds of branded products in their portfolios.   An important part of branding is protecting those brands and companies need to determine how to best monitor their marks.  Employing a watch service is always a good idea for major brands and/or a company name.  However, the cost of a watch service is by the mark and can quickly add up if a company has numerous brands to protect.  Thus, a few suggestions as to steps a company can take to protect its marks include:

1. Apply for federal trademark registration whenever possible;
2. Proper and consistent use of the ® ™ symbols in connection with each and every brand;
3. Undertake periodic Internet searches for potentially infringing uses;
4. Create champions for your brand - highly loyal customers, distributors, retailers, and other partners, who will bring potential infringements to your attention;
5. Internal education for employees to keep their eyes open and listen with an open ear when others bring potential infringements to light; and
6. If you become aware of a potential infringement, take action sooner rather than later by sending a formal letter.  You may want to consider hiring a trademark attorney to send the letter; investing in a well written cease and desist letter will often pay off by putting an end to the infringement. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As promised earlier this week, in my post entitled "Without Words, But Not Speechless: More On Non-Verbal Logos That Can Stand Alone," here is my effort to identify, from a legal perspective, some of the pros and cons of non-verbal logos and other trademark styles. 

But, before addressing the legal implications, it is worth noting that a number of our insightful readers and commenters already have helped articulate a variety of pros and cons from a business and marketing perspective, here. By my count, there appears to be consensus on at least two important points: (1) Having an iconic stand-alone non-verbal logo or wordless trademark symbol is highly desirable, especially for truly international brands; but (2) be prepared to spend a lot of time, effort, and significant resources to achieve one.

In addition, at least one designer has written that having a logo without words "can be a big branding pain," for a variety of reasons. She identifies three basic logo styles: (1) Text logos; (2) symbol logos; and (3) combination logos. Examples of text logos would be the Coca-Cola script, the Yahoo! stylized word, and the Google stylized word, all three illustrated in my earlier post. The highly stylized Ebay logo is another good example of a text logo. On the other hand, the Shell logo, McDonald's Golden Arches, and the Nike Swoosh, are all good examples of symbol logos. In addition, here is a message board collecting a number of other possible candidates for symbol logos that are capable of standing lone -- without words -- yet, they still have a lot to say to consumers. Many of them, in fact, were mentioned by commenters to my prior post.  

Anyway, the designer referenced above contends that for a variety of reasons, combination logos often make the most sense. According to her, a combination logo "combines both a symbol and the company name. The symbol and text can be integrated together, side by side, or with one located above the other."

Generally, from a trademark owner and legal perspective, I prefer the combination logo too, but not the "integrated" type, instead the "side by side" type or the "one above the other" type. The Mercedes-Benz combination logo shown below nicely illustrates the "one above the other" type of combination logo:

Why do I generally prefer this type of trademark logo format and style?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

What does Twitter have in common with Kool-Aid, Mickey Mouse, and Spam? Maybe nothing, at least yet, but I predict that it will soon, unless Twitter retains some talented PR help in a hurry. Why?

The Kool-Aid, Mickey Mouse, and Spam brands all have spawned secondary or alternate and negative non-trademark meanings that have become part of the English language, meanings in each case that lack positive brand associations, to say the least. If Twitter is not careful it will find itself "following" the likes of Kool-Aid, Mickey Mouse, and Spam, and be in the similar undesirable position of tolerating language changes that distract from their brands and favorable brand messages, to be left watching others make generic use of their brand names to communicate a variety of ideas and meanings that are neither flattering nor brand building.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (5)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Although intellectual property lawyers of the Dr. No variety may not like to admit it -- I submit that, not all slippery slopes are created equal. While some slippery slope cautions might prevent a few bumps and bruises in traveling along a particular path (e.g., the one on the left below), I suspect far fewer slippery slope cautions actually prevent life-ending falls from perilous cliffs (e.g., the one on the right below), yet other man-made slippery slopes specifically are designed for fun and enjoyment -- not danger -- and have generated enormous sales over the years (e.g., WHAM-O's SLIP'N SLIDE brand products).

So, putting aside Professor Douglas Walton's teaching that the slippery slope argument is "often treated as a fallacy," it is worth asking what brand of slippery slope most accurately represents the risk associated with marketers using their brands and trademarks as verbs?

As discussed in Part I of my Just Verb It? series, many marketers love the idea of having their brands embraced as verbs, but many trademark lawyers totally forbid any "brandverbing," i.e., "mis-using" brands (adjectives) as verbs: "Why? To prevent brand names and trademarks from becoming generic names and part of the public domain for anyone to freely use, even competitors."

No doubt, genericide -- the ultimate fear of using brands as verbs -- equals certain trademark death, a horrible result from both marketing and legal perspectives; but, I submit it doesn't necessarily follow that brandverbing activities automatically result in trademark death or genericide. To be sure, far more than a single act of verbing a trademark or brand must occur before a majority of the relevant consuming public no longer sees the claimed trademark or brand as identifying and distinguishing certain products or services as coming from a single source. Given this, there must be an opportunity to engage in some thoughtful and creative level of brandverbing without committing trademark suicide, right?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (13)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Rapala, the world's largest manufacturer of fishing lures has pleasured us with some pretty clever and creative advertisements over the years, a lot of them award-winning ads too. For example, Carmichael Lynch created the above billboard ad that over time gradually "attracted cats" to the billboard featuring a super-sized Rapala minnow fishing lure. Lots of cats, in fact, many more than you can shake a stick at, you might say, if you fancy idioms and don't happen to be fond of those feline types. Carmichael Lynch notes: "With simplicity and humor, we've helped the [Rapala] brand connect with its enthusiast audience and grow to be the undisputed market leader for fishing lures." This is simply delicious creativity.

More recently, however, the undisputed market leader for fishing lures is now using the brand name of the undisputed market leader for Internet search engines in Rapala billboard advertising, apparently to continue growing Rapala's fishing lure business. Although there are Twitter tweets and other mentions on the web referring to this new Rapala billboard ad, I haven't been able to locate an online image yet, so I'll have to take a picture of the one I have seen myself and post it here when I can. In the meantime, just picture the above billboard minus the cats (and minnow lure) and with this slogan in large prominent black type above the red Rapala logo: "More Hits Than Google". Is this new Rapala billboard ad one of the award-winning variety?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (5)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Notice anything special about this pair of photographs featuring two different Holiday Inn front entrances? OK, putting aside that the one on the right -- with green lighting -- seems to have attracted, at least, a few cars, whereas the "blue light special" on the left appears to stage a full house with virtually every room light on, but ironically it reveals an empty parking lot.

Well, these aren't ordinary photographs, they are trademark specimens of use; Six Continents Hotels, owner of the Holiday Inn brand, claims that they depict a pair of non-traditional trademarks, having filed them with the U.S. Trademark Office in April 2009, and asserting that use of the "lighting" marks commenced back in January 2008. So, we aren't talking about the new H logo previously blogged about here or the old Holiday Inn word mark -- those are standard and traditional single-letter logo and word trademarks. In case you're wondering, no sign of any red or yellow lights for Holiday Inn, at least, on the Trademark Office database.

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

Moore’s Law holds that the power of an integrated circuit will double every two years. That prediction, made in 1965 by Intel co-founder Gordon Moore, has proved remarkably durable.

The continued application of Moore’s Law has taken us in a few decades from crude transistor radios to handheld information devices packing more power than entire rooms of mainframe computers that sent the first spaceships to the moon.

And it’s unleashed an unprecedented burst of creativity, as the reach of the Internet allows people from around the globe to exchange information and build on each other’s ideas at dizzying speed.

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

Even young children understand the power of brands and trademark symbols before they can read.

Years ago, when my children were at the ripe young age of wondering (and maybe caring) what my job was, I'd try to explain the kinds of things a trademark attorney might do. Of course, I didn't tell them some view trademark types as "the most basic figure." 

It took a while to find a message that stuck with them. What finally got through was when I posed a hypothetical question, asking whether they liked eating at the Golden Arches, and what they would think if they couldn't get a Happy Meal there because it wasn't McDonalds after all, but some other restaurant using the Golden Arches too. They were outraged this could ever happen.

So, the Golden Arches can probably stand alone.  

Here is another non-verbal logo that can truly stand alone:

Yes, it functions as an exceedingly strong and probably famous brand and trademark with no further explanation or word mark to support it (and to not undermine my point, I’ll refrain from uttering the four letter brand name firmly linked to it in our minds).

What do you think about this one?

(As you may recall, Dan previously posted on a different topic related to this logo here).

I’d respectfully suggest that when the hang-tag attached to the luggage item bearing this logo is closely supported by a lot of words like SWISSGEAR, WENGER, and FROM THE MAKER OF THE GENUINE SWISS ARMY KNIFE, the logo is having a tough time standing alone and probably needs a trademark support group.

By the way, anyone notice the resemblance to the flag of Switzerland?

How about the International or American Red Cross?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link