Duets Blog : Creativity and the Law: DuetsBlog

DuetsBlog celebrated its first birthday today, so that means Duey the squirrel is one year old. He has made a lot of friends over the past year (as have we), and he has come a long way (as have we) despite his exhaustion hording nuts (we haven't done any of that) for the long cold winter we had (hopefully this remains past tense).  

This is some of what Duey has observed since our inaugural post entitled Dr. No and the Parade of Horribles:

1. Some 350 posts (part of the reason for his exhaustion);
2. Some 530 comments (part of the reason for your exhaustion);
3. Some 840 followers on Twitter;
4. Some 250,000 visits; and
5. Us, having a lot of fun . . . .

Here is a snapshot of where we were back in July 2009, and here is one from December 2009.

Thanks to our wonderful and growing group of talented Guest Bloggers, and thanks to you for your comments and interest in the conversation we have started here on DuetsBlog.

May all collaborations between trademark types and marketing types be early, often, personable, smart, enjoyable, graceful, and mutually beneficial.

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

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

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.

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

We're not talking the foamed footwear Crocs® that Randall Hull wrote about in his What a Croc! post from a couple of weeks ago. Instead, we're talking slow cookers -- on this snow-capped Valentine's Day in the Twin Cities.

Every once in a while a stroll down the grocery store aisle leaves me surprised when I spot a federal registration symbol next to a word that I thought was a generic term for the goods or services in question. Today was such a day, when I noticed Sunbeam's Crock-Pot® The Original Slow Cooker appliance on the store shelf. Apparently I'm not alone in my surprise at the trademark status, given Wikipedia's acknowledgment that Crock-Pot is a trademark "often used generically in the USA" -- and Slo-Cooker is a trademark "often used generically in the UK."

It appears the Crock-Pot® trademark was originally registered back in 1972, and a couple of years ago federally-registered protection for the trademark was extended into a number of different classes of goods at the U.S. Trademark Office for a variety of different products, including food, and some cooking accessories. Last June, this logo was federally registered by Sunbeam, but it specifically disclaimed any exclusive rights in the descriptive phrase "The Original Slow Cooker":

I'm left wondering whether this is like the Rollerblade example, where it took the owner of the Rollerblade brand an entire decade to battle genericide by developing a commercially acceptable generic term (in-line skates) to couple with the brand.

Here are a few questions for marketing types to ponder and discuss: If you're Sunbeam, owner of the federally-registered Crock-Pot® trademark, do you care if retailers and your direct competitors call their competing products a Crock-Pot too? What about Search Engines selling Crock-Pot as a keyword, do you care about that? If so, how much do you care? Is it important enough to spend dollars on stopping these kinds of actions?

Just so no one is left out, here, for you trademark types out there, what steps would you take to avoid having the Crock-Pot® trademark invalidated on genericness grounds?

Same drill for the Bundt® trademark that Dan wrote about prior to the holidays.

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

John Reinan provided yesterday a marketer's perspective that questioned the value of coined trademarks. In my experience, as a trademark type, one place on the spectrum of distinctiveness where both trademark and marketing types can have their cake and eat it too, is the delicious category of suggestive trademarks.

From the legal side of the coin, suggestive marks are immediately protectable and generally enjoy the additional benefit of their inherent strength. On the marketing side of the coin, suggestive marks communicate something about the goods (but not as directly or immediately as descriptive marks do), so the marketer need not start from scratch in educating the consumer, as one must do with coined marks.

For some additional posts discussing the spectrum of distinctiveness, the important line between descriptive and suggestive trademarks, and related issues, see here, here, here, and here.

What is often forgotten about the fine line in differentiating between descriptive and suggestive marks is the subjectivity of making the determination. In practice, this can be a rather fuzzy sort of bright line. What is also frequently forgotten is how narrow the rights can be with some suggestive marks -- those said to be highly suggestive or very close to the merely descriptive border.

A stroll down the baking aisle in your local grocery store provides a nice place to illustrate both points. For example, when shopping for cake mix it is hard to miss the apparent importance of "moist" plus a superlative as key selling points -- "moist" being a merely descriptive term that immediately and directly describes a desirable characteristic of a finished cake. Indeed, Betty Crocker has Super Moist, Pillsbury has Moist Supreme, and Duncan Hines has Moist Deluxe:

These three different brands compete with one another on the very same store shelves and the fact that they peacefully coexist and compete directly without any apparent consumer confusion (despite their similar names) helps illustrate the point of how narrow in scope some suggestive trademark rights can be.

On the point about subjectivity, as the links above demonstrate, you might be surprised to learn that the Super Moist mark was permitted registration by the U.S. Trademark Office as a suggestive and inherently distinctive trademark. Whereas, the Moist Supreme and Moist Deluxe marks were considered merely descriptive, and the U.S. Trademark Office required evidence of acquired distinctiveness (a/k/a secondary meaning) before registration was permitted on the Principal Register.

So, where descriptiveness ends and suggestiveness begins can often depend on who is asked to apply the legal test. Perhaps that is why the U.S. Trademark Office is supposed to approve marks as suggestive, when in doubt. Can someone explain the doubt in favor of Super Moist, and the lack of doubt with Moist Supreme and Moist Deluxe? Because I'm not feeling the need to exercise much imagination, thought or perception to appreciate that each brand communicates a really, really moist cake.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• 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

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?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (10)
• 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

This sponsored banner ad is currently appearing in AdAge's Daily News on-line newsletter:

How many boxes of tissue do you suppose this ad is responsible for selling?

If the answer is none, that is probably fine with Kimberly-Clark since the return on investment for this ad is measured quite differently, I'm sure, given how the frequently misused Kleenex® brand is currently enjoying the lofty status as one of The 100 Best Global Brands. No doubt, Kimberly-Clark would like to keep not only this annointed status, but even more basically, it would like to keep the status as a brand and protectable trademark intact too.

In all likelihood, trademark types are behind this kind of advertisement, or perhaps more properly termed, "public service announcement," and they also are probably behind the "brand tissue" phrase, closely following each use of the brand name Kleenex®. Both measures help emphasize to consumers that Kleenex® is a brand of tissue coming from a single unique source, not a type or category of tissue coming from a variety of different competing sources.

These kinds of precautions are important educational steps a trademark owner can take when a meaningful portion of the public may misuse the brand name as a generic term. They are designed to shape the public's proper use of the trademark, and, hopefully, prevent the trademark owner's ultimate fear: Genericide. Indeed, we previously noted Kimberly-Clark's success to date on this very subject:

[W]hen the public misuses a famous trademark as a generic term and the brand owner risks losing exclusive rights through changes in the common meaning of the term. Avoiding the risk of this happening is something Kimberly-Clark® knows more than a little about, I suspect. No doubt, the legal team at Kimberly-Clark® has done an impressive job of preventing the KLEENEX® brand from following former brands like ESCALATOR, TRAMPOLINE, and ZIPPER, to name a few, into the unpleasant graveyard of genericide.

In the end, however, trademark owner's efforts aside, the public will decide the issue of genericide, as we have discussed before:

Unlike the kind of trademark abandonment that automatically results from the single act of non-use of a trademark coupled with no intention at that time to resume use of the trademark, the kind of trademark abandonment that is also known as genericide, in contrast, results from a gradual change in the meaning of a trademark or brand to an unprotectable generic term. A change that shifts the meaning -- understood by a majority of the relevant consuming public -- from identifying, distinguishing and indicating a single source for a particular product or service to a designation that connotes no single source at all, but instead, an entire product or service category with multiple unrelated sources.

So long as the "majority of the relevant consuming public" (more than half) continue to understand Kleenex® as a brand, the exclusive trademark rights will remain intact.

If you read AdAge, congratulations, apparently we are part of the "relevant consuming public," or perhaps you are viewed as someone who has influence on how the "relevant consuming public" perceives the Kleenex® brand.

I hope I did my part here, now it's your turn.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• 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

When it comes to scope of rights and trademark enforcement, as a trademark type, it's hard not to admire Adidas' success in preventing the use of two, three, and four stripes, when its long-standing federally-registered design mark consists of three stripes.

At least in the U.S., Adidas appears to have gained a one stripe buffer on either side of its powerful three stripe iconic symbol, so advocates for Adidas might say 2, 3, or 4 stripes, and you're out (of luck anyway).

(For some great coverage on Adidas' recent trademark enforcement activities, check out Seattle Trademark Lawyer).

How can it be then (within the hospitality industry), that no analogous buffer exists between 4&5, Motel 6, Big 7 Motel, Bel-Air Motel 7, Big 7 Motel (Chula Vista, California), Big 7 Motel (Valdosta, Georgia), Magnificent Seven, Seven Days, Super 8, and National 9 Inn, with them all happily coexisting (apparently) without any likelihood of confusion?

(Also, how can it be that Super 8 (apparently) doesn't control the Super8Inn.com domain?)

Perhaps it all comes down to what your trademark strength and likelihood of confusion analysis happens to count, stripes or numbers . . . .

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (13)
• 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

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• 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

Hopefully you enjoy riddles. It is late Sunday afternoon, 4:30 pm to be exact. Too early for valet parking at Fogo de Chao, a wonderful Brazilian steakhouse, so you drive two blocks and enter a parking lot with the following sign:

You had a very nice dinner and now you're ready to leave the parking lot at 6:15 pm. Based on the above sign (and contract, by the way), how much do you owe the parking attendant? Instead of humming the Jeopardy thinking music theme song, might I suggest you consider humming the 1970 Five Man Electrical Band tune "Signs" during your calculation. And for any '70s challenged folk, I'll prime the pump for you: "Sign, sign, everywhere a sign, blocking out the scenery, breaking my mind, do this, don't do that, can't you read the sign?"

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