May 2012

On May 21, Google was sued by an individual who purchased and registered 750 domain names incorporating the term “google” (e.g.  googlestarbucks.com, googlemcdonalds.com, googleeagle.com, googledemocrats.com, googlerepublicans.com…you get the idea).  The complaint filed by David Elliott can be found here (thanks to Jeff John Roberts of paidContent.org for the link).   Interestingly, Mr. Elliott is named as

– Derek Allen, Attorney –

At least not by legal research database giants LexisNexis and Westlaw, according to federal judge Jed Rakoff.

Those readers who eagerly anticipate the release of my monthly post will certainly remember my April missive about two lawyers who claimed that Lexis and Westlaw were impermissibly profiting by selling access

Debbie Laskey, MBA

By now, everyone with a television, radio, computer, smartphone, tablet, newspaper, or a few friends has heard that Facebook went public. The company’s initial public offering raised an insane amount of money as well as support from countless new investors. But Facebook has something more valuable to share: five lessons

Last week, Jack Ellis of World Trademark Review, did a very interesting piece on something called “invisible branding”: “Trademark-free marketing: should other companies follow Ford?”

In it, Ellis explores Ford Motor Company’s recent decision to utilize no trademark or brand references in Ford’s “Go Further” advertising campaign.

It is interesting timing for Ford to

Another day, another new social network. Microsoft has thrown its hat into the ring by launching so.cl (perhaps one of you branding peeps can explain these misspelled words, abbreviations, and abundance of per.iods). Yes, you pronounce it “social.”

Part Google (and G+) and part StumbleUpon, So.cl seeks to bring content to the user via feeds,

David Mitchel, Marketing Manager

The Facebook IPO was one of the most dominant stories of the business news cycle this past week. It produced a divergent range of opinions. However, it was not the only big news story related to the business of Facebook. General Motors decided to cease its advertising relationship with the leading social media site. This made a stir because GM is the company with the third highest advertising budget in the US, trailing only AT&T and Procter & Gamble. GM made this decision because they do not believe that Facebook advertising is a driver of purchase for car buyers. Some reaction to the news of GM’s decision to pull back from Facebook advertising was to condemn Facebook as an ineffective advertising platform. This line of thinking is incorrect and short sighted analysis.

There’s a famous saying that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. That statement can be adapted to the advertising world by saying that the beauty of any advertising medium is in the eye of beholder. Any advertising medium, including Facebook, must be aligned with the goals of the brand for it to be perceived as beautiful by the brand. It should be paramount for any brand to advertise in mediums that produce the greatest results for that brand.

In GM’s role as the beholder, I see two factors at play: 1) Misaligned goals for the medium and 2) A corporate wide re-evaluation of all media buys, which is a more unique factor to them than to brand advertising at large.

With regard to the factor of misaligned goals, it is clear that they were not seeing the results that they wanted from Facebook. The Wall Street Journal article referenced in the first paragraph shows how purchase was the important metric to them. Contrast this with other automakers who affirmed their commitment to advertising on Facebook, such as Ford and Subaru. Marketing executives from those two brands made the following statements about Facebook advertising this week.

“We’ve found that Facebook ads are very effective, and they’re most effective when we strategically combine them with great content and innovative forms of storytelling rather than a straight media buy.” Scott Monty, Ford Head of Social Media.

“It cost-effectively generates a fan base, generates awareness for the brand and generates traffic for our websites.” Dan Evans, Chief Marketing Officer, Subaru of America

Pay close attention to the words that Monty and Evans use to describe how their brands use Facebook as an ad medium. Monty talks about integration with other promotion tactics to create a desirable effect for Ford, while Evans focuses on achieving softer metrics for Subaru than just evaluating Facebook advertising as a means of revenue enhancement. Both of these approaches carve out a niche for Facebook advertising in the grand scheme of a brand advertising strategy. I think both of these brands have the proper perspective on what Facebook advertising can and cannot do for a brand.
Continue Reading Is Facebook a Viable Advertising Medium for Brands?

As we have written before, any brand extension requires the necessary due diligence to mitigate the risk of a serious trademark conflict. And, from a trademark perspective, both strength and scope of rights necessarily expand as the number of different goods and services sold under the brand grows.

If recent marketing research on

–Dan Kelly, Attorney

A couple of weeks ago my wife and I were dining out. Neither of us can remember the specifics (life with a newborn will do this to you), but my hazy recollection is that one of us ordered something with cheese, and following the standard interrogatory about the type of cheese, it