First things first: Happy 4th of July, Dear Readers!

4thJulyFlagThat was a pretty honest, simple, genuine, transparent, straightforward, to the point, not belaboring at all, under any circumstances, my most sincere wishes to our dear readers, agree?

Now contrast the original well wishes with the elaborate description of them, the latter being anything but short and sweet. Kind of reminds me of Kind’s apparent branding strategy. From where I sit, it represents a fascinating juxtaposition of the simple and basic core brand name with the complex, wordy, highly informative (dare I say descriptive), and multiple taglines.

On the one hand, KIND, truly a model of brevity (in its name at least), has built an amazing brand and developed strong trademark rights in a simple, positive, pure, four letter word that easily can be shared and repeated without folks blushing:

KindBarFrontOn the other hand, it also has developed loads of federally-registered trademarks in wordy phrases that I imagine competitors might like to use too (assuming they could live up to them):

I don’t know about you, but the first tagline above is kind of a mouthful (of descriptiveness), and while the last two are somewhat smaller bites, they are still pretty descriptive, yet no descriptiveness refusals for any of them — the USPTO considered all of the above taglines, including the three I have highlighted here (first and the last two) to be inherently distinctive marks without the need for Kind to establish any kind of acquired distinctiveness.

Sometimes the more words in a tagline — even if descriptive and informative — translate into an inherently distinctive mark, perhaps explaining how the sixteen word tagline above satisfied the USPTO, without the Supplemental Register, and only requiring a disclaimer of the last nine words.

So, wordiness sometimes can help avoid a mere descriptiveness refusal, to create inherently distinctive trademark rights. It kind of reminds me of McDonald’s famous inherently distinctive and non-descriptive, yet descriptive 71 letter trademark mouthful:


Notwithstanding all this food for thought, as you may recall, wordiness in the written description of a non-verbal mark, may have a limiting effect on the scope of trademark rights.

So, back to Kind, you might wonder how it makes valid trademark use of so many lengthy taglines? Basically, it appears to make liberal use of them (in lower case style) on the cartons that hold the individual bars, where there is more room to spread out, and I know this because I buy them by the case, and I’ve probed some of Kind’s specimens of record at the USPTO too:


But, what Kind might want to watch carefully is the blending of its federally-registered tagline marks with its descriptive ad copy, as shown below, in the back side of the original bar shown above:


Recall, Gatorade? So, some kinder and gentler almost advice to Kind might be to keep its tagline trademarks separate from its descriptive ad copy. What do you think?