Let’s all hope that the Supplemental Trademark Register is not on the death watch.

It appears though to be on life support, at times, and especially with the USPTO’s heightened focus on “merely informational” matter, including laudatory messages.

This is a common basis for registration refusal nowadays: “Merely informational matter fails to function as a mark to indicate source and thus is not registrable.”

Don’t all valid trademarks communicate information? Exactly. How does the USPTO know when at least one of the bits of that information is not about the source?

It cannot be fatal to validity that a mark communicates more information than simply source, see a suggestive mark or a descriptive one that has become distinctive.

Although not a laudatory example, the first precedential decision from the TTAB in 2019 denied Wal-Mart’s application on the Principal Register, for INVESTING IN AMERICAN JOBS, a slogan for retail store services, calling it “merely informational,incapable as a mark:


Wal-Mart recognized that its claimed mark communicated descriptive information, yet it argued that its evidence was sufficient to show acquired distinctiveness.

What’s striking about the Wal-Mart decision is that evidence of descriptiveness was used to support the fatal conclusion that the slogan can never function as a mark.

It relied on a series of prior cases holding certain phrases incapable of functioning as marks (THINK GREEN, GUARANTEED STARTING, DRIVE SAFELY, and others).

It used evidence typically supportive of a descriptiveness refusal to say that Wal-Mart’s slogan would not be perceived as a mark to indicate the source of services.

It also pointed to several examples like “ONCE A MARINE, ALWAYS A MARINE,” “PROUDLY MADE IN THE USA,” and “THE BEST BEER IN AMERICA,” as merely informational or laudatory slogans, incapable of serving a trademark purpose.

Laudatory terms long have been considered merely descriptive (not generic) for the provided goods or services, so they’re ideally suited for the Supplemental Register.

The Supplemental Register exists as a holding cell for merely descriptive phrases not yet distinctive, but capable of becoming distinctive, maybe at some future time.

Incapable matter — subject matter that cannot serve as a trademark — like generic terms and phrases are impossible and hopeless of ever functioning as a valid mark.

TMEP 1202.04(a) actually blends laudatory and informational: “Matter that only conveys general information about the applicant’s identified goods or services, including highly laudatory claims of superiority, fails to function as a mark.”

So, now we’re going to differentiate between garden variety laudatory claims that are descriptive, and “highly laudatory claims of superiority” — the latter being incapable, and the former holding out some hope of having at least a chance?

This unfortunate approach is reminiscent of the widely criticized approach of the “so highly descriptive” category as to be incapable of serving a trademark purpose.

All the way back in 1989, I went on the record, questioning the “so highly descriptive as to be incapable” line of cases in “Putting the Cart Before the Horse in Assessing Trademark Validity — Toward Redefining the Inherently Generic Term,” published in the University of Iowa College of Law’s Journal of Corporation Law.

The problem with the “so highly descriptive” category is it treats descriptive matter as incapable and generic without the rigors of an actual genericness determination.

The poster (or coaster) child for the eerily similar approach is the Federal Circuit’s 1999 decision rejecting Sam Adam’s THE BEST BEER IN AMERICA slogan as incapable, blurring the distinction between descriptive and generic designations:

In that decision, Sam Adams had “not met its burden to show” that the slogan THE BEST BEER IN AMERICA for beer, had acquired distinctiveness/secondary meaning.

Had the TTAB and Federal Circuit stopped there, fair enough, doing so would have allowed Sam Adams to seek a Supplemental Registration and try again later (with more evidence of acquired distinctiveness) for a coveted Principal Registration.

But instead, both the TTAB below and the Federal Circuit on review, went on to editorialize that no amount of evidence could ever turn THE BEST BEER IN AMERICA into a trademark, not because it’s generic, but because it’s incapable.

That’s what courts routinely said about single color marks, they’re impossible and incapable of serving a trademark purpose, until Owens Corning came along with the Pink Panther, to reverse decades of thinking against single color trademarks.

And, if “highly laudatory claims of superiority” are actually incapable of a trademark purpose and outside the possible definition of a trademark, then how can Principal Registration of AMERICA’S BEST BEER DRINKING CITY be explained, or these?

Let’s be honest, since the stated test is really to discern how the claimed mark would be perceived by the relevant public, too easily dismissing evidence going to that question, doesn’t help and starts to feel more like an impossible shell game.

I’d rather see the evidence of descriptiveness (which provides information) used to support a descriptiveness refusal, allow a Supplemental Registration, then the USPTO can wage the real evidentiary battle with claims of acquired distinctiveness.

Last week was an incredible opportunity to share some of these thoughts in NYC with those attending Practicing Law Institute’s Advanced Trademark Law 2019 seminar, thanks to PLI, Kenneth Min, and co-chairs Kieran Doyle and Dean Eyler!

In the end, let’s all hope that the USPTO reins in its hyper-focus on expanding the “merely informational” and outcome-determinative category of incapable subject matter, so we don’t have to kiss the Supplemental Register goodbye.

Additional hat tip to Sam Adam’s and its vintage painter’s cap:

 

 

Famous celebrity chef Chloe Coscarelli (“Chloe”) and Tom Colicchio (“Colicchio”) started a new pop-up restaurant called “Supernatural” that is in the midst of a “food fight” or lawsuit with owners of the By Chloe restaurant Chloe originally founded but no longer has an ownership interest in.  After receiving cease and desist letter from BCH Hospitality Group LLC (“BCH”), Chloe and Colicchio sued BCH in a declaratory judgment action for a judgment that they do not infringe on the CHLOE® trademarks and did not breach Coscarelli’s Name, Face and Likeness Agreement (“NFL Agreement”) with BCH.

Chloe was the first vegan chef to win Cupcake Wars, a national cooking competition, on the Food Network.  She is a published author of four popular cookbooks.  She is known as “Chloe” and “Chef Chloe” and worked at gourmet vegan restaurants in New York and San Francisco.  She has been recognized as “America’s favorite vegan chef” and featured on the “30 under 30” series by  The New York Times, Zagat and Forbes.  However, I must confess that although I am a pescatarian (meaning a vegetarian that eats fish) I had not heard of Chloe or her vegan restaurant until I learned about her lawsuit.

However, I have heard of Chef Tom Colicchio.  He is a James Beard Award winner and also known as “Top Chef.”  Colicchio received an Emmy Award for his work as a Judge on the show Top Chef.  I have had the pleasure of eating at Colicchio’s New York restaurants:  CRAFT (located by the fabulous Flat Iron Building), Gotham Bar & Grill and Gramercy Tavern.  I am hoping to check out The Quilted Giraffe on my next trip to New York (but I digress).

Their Complaint includes the following picture of the chefs:

Chloe founded “by CHLOE” and then partnered with BCH’s predecessor.  BCH is associated with James Haber and ESquared Hospitality.  She claims in her lawsuit that BCH ousted her from the restaurant and she has not been involved for two years.  BCH has a different story, alleging among other things, that she was “grossly negligent” related to losing leases and sabotaging deals with partners.  I have not delved into this messy business “divorce” so I will comment no further.

After Chloe left, BCH started “Sweets by Chloe bakery” pictured below:

am starting to get hungry so I better get back to the legal dispute.  In their Complaint, the chefs included the following picture related to their vegan restaurant:

The chefs argued that the restaurant’s name is “Supernatural” which is not similar to By Chloe at all.  The name highlights that the food is super natural.  According to the Complaint, the two chefs collaboration arose from Colicchio writing “An Open letter to (Male) Chefs” on the platform Medium about rampant harassment in the restaurant industry.  It sounds like Colicchio is on the right side of the Me-Too movement.

In contrast,  BCH focuses on the lower portion that identified the two chefs involved with the new SUPERNATURAL restaurant.  Specifically, the lower part of the sign is “CHLOE COSCARELLI X TOM COLICCHIO COLLABORATION.”  The chefs will likely argue that their names are informative and the trademark and certainly any dominant mark for their restaurant is SUPERNATURAL.  Further, the chefs argue their fame as chefs will not be confused with BCH or its By Chloe marks or restaurants.

I have not seen the NFL Agreement.  It may have a non-compete, but it would likely have some sort of time limit rather than preclude her from working for life.  Chloe asserts the agreement is terminated.  Further, I would doubt that the NFL Agreement required her to change her name or not be able to truthfully state who she is in connection with a restaurant.  The more likely prohibition would be to not use the name “CHLOE” for the restaurant.  But, I have not seen the NFL Agreement, so there may be other arguments that BCH will have against the chef.

This will be an interesting case to follow.  As there are allegations about a dip in quality at By Chloe, the judge and jury might want to sample food from the restaurants involved.

Over the last decade, we’ve covered Super Bowl topics, it’s that time of year again!

We’ve probed the NFL’s overzealous activities and asked hard fair use questions.

And, with Big Game LII in our backyard, we had a front row ambush marketing seat.

With digital marketing, that front row seat can be anywhere your iPhone takes you:

The top half of the email advertisement from Tuesday, landing in my inbox (shown above), seems to have a better argument for a nominative fair use defense than the the bottom half of the same ad (shown below), agree?

Assuming Birch’s is not an actual licensee, seems to me a rather difficult argument that use of the Super Bowl LIII logo is really fair and necessary for communicating truthfully, but, what say you?

UPDATE:

Hot off the email press and inbox from yesterday, here is another Super Bowl ambush, note their favoring of “Big Game” over “Super Bowl”:

So, they may have avoided the NFL’s wrath, but what about the Patriots and Rams logos on the helmets, fair use, or not, friends?

Here’s to looking at you again, James!

Can a gang become a brand? This is a question asked in the new Netflix show, Trigger Warning,  produced by and starring Michael Render, AKA Killer Mike, one half of the Grammy-nominated rap group Run the Jewels.

Killer Mike of Run the Jewels performing at Pitchfork Chicago on July 19, 2015 (Photo Credit: Me)

In episode three, “White Gang Privilege,” Mike explores America’s love of the Outlaw, real and imaginary, and typically white: Al Capone, Tony Soprano, Tony Montana, Michael Corleone, Johnny Cash, Gordon Gecko, and Hells Angels, to name a few.  The episode begins with Mike asking: How is it possible for Hells Angels, a known biker gang, to sell t-shirts on Amazon? And what’s stopping black gangs from doing the same thing?

As Mike drives to a trap house in Atlanta to find out, he comments that “even though black gangs … are as well known as the Hells Angels, they haven’t been able to cash in and trademark their brands in the same way.”  So he meets with Crips gang members Yayo, Murdo, AC, and Newny to discuss legitimate business ideas, like zipper and button manufacturing, and, eventually, the gang lands on a new brand of soda: Crip-a-Cola.

Crip-a-Cola packaging as shown on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert

Spoiler alert: The episode proceeds to follow the gang through all of the typical startup business challenges: getting a loan (or at least trying), creating a minimum viable product (needs more sugar), working with a graphic designer (his first time working with a gang), consulting a beverage industry expert (impressed by the polished product), focus-group testing (everyone is afraid or skeptical at first, especially Mario!), advertising (a music video like commercial), and making that first sale (at a local farmer’s market), all while handling a new market rival (Blood Pop soda produced by the Crips’ rival gang, the Bloods).

Considering everything that went into the episode, and the seriousness of the effort, I was left scratching my head over the obvious, and perhaps true-to-life, startup oversight:  where’s the trademark lawyer?  I spotted at least four issues where a good trademark lawyer could have really helped.

Trademark Notice

Do you see the little circle-R next to the word Crip-a-Cola on the product packaging?  That means “registered trademark” and indicates that Crip-a-Cola is federally registered in the United States.  The only problem is that it’s not registered.  In fact, there isn’t even an application pending!  We’ve blogged before about misuse of the trademark registration symbol here (fraud?) and here (false advertising?).  A good trademark lawyer would have corrected that to a “TM” and filed an intent-to-use application before going live on Netflix (or even to that first farmer’s market).

Clearance

Another possible problem a trademark lawyer could have helped with: Clearance.  Can the Crips actually use “Crip-a-Cola?” despite at a minimum, perhaps calling to mind Coca-Cola?  While “calling to mind” is not infringement, does Crip-a-Cola step to closely to Coca-Cola, since Coca-Cola is a famous brand, and able to wield the full power of anti-dilution law?  What has Coca-Cola done with similar attempts?  A good trademark lawyer would investigate and find out: of course, Coca-Cola will protect its corner, just take a look at the mark CropaCola, which popped up in 2014, and which Coca-Cola quickly opposed, on likelihood of confusion and dilution grounds, asserting the following:

[Coca-Cola] is the world’s largest beverage company, serving more than 1.6 billion consumers each day, in more than 200 countries around the world.  [The] COCA-COLA brand is the cornerstone of its portfolio, which presently includes fifteen billion dollar brands.  COCA-COLA and DIET COKE are the top two soft drink brands in the world. . . .[T]he ‘CROPA’ term in [CROPACOLA] is confusingly similar in sight and sound to the ‘COCA’ term in [COCA-COLA], containing the same number of syllables and a similar phonetic impression, which is compounded by the addition of the ‘COLA’ suffix, in and identical manner as the use of [Coca-Cola’s] COLA suffix.”

Seems plausible that Crip-a-Cola could expect the same treatment from the largest beverage company on Earth.  This is where having a trademark lawyer in your gang would really help.  For one, to identify issues like these (never mind taste infringement) and identify strategies for going forward, but more importantly, to look for defensible legal positions and creative solutions, for example, perhaps seizing on this line in Coke’s opposition: “Furthermore, the ‘CROPA’ term has no independent meaning, further failing to distinguish it from [Coca-Cola].”  (emphasis added).  Here, Crip-a-Cola may have an advantage: unlike “Cropa”, the term “CRIP,” does have several independent, distinct meanings (perhaps the most helpful is the possible backronym: “Common Revolution In Progress.”) and is likely famous, or infamous, in its own right.

Ownership

What else could a good trademark attorney help with?  How about determining ownership?  Absent a legal entity to own the CRIP-A-COLA mark and the related business, Yayo, Murdo, AC, Newny, and Killer Mike would own Crip-a-Cola jointly as individuals in a general partnership, the worst form of legal entity, due to the shared, personal, and unlimited legal liability each partner shoulders. Better to form an LLC at least, not only to more cleanly own the trademark, but also to remove personal liability, formalize ownership, management, and tax decisions, and adopt buy-sell provisions.

Furthermore, what about competing claims of ownership? Is there an official Crips entity that could claim false association?  Maybe – one trademark application filed July 5, 2018 for the mark CRIPS for “association services” and “Organizing chapters of a Community Revolution In Progress club and promoting the interests of the members thereof” suggests that an entity called Crips, LLC, may have been formed to claim leadership of the Crips.  This would be something any good trademark attorney would investigate, and develop a strategy for dealing with.

Legal Notices

Finally, the last issue in the episode I spotted, where good trademark lawyer would lend a hand, arises from the fine print claim made at the end of the Crip-a-Cola commercial (NSFW):

The fine print states that “unauthorized use of the Crip-a-Cola font is prohibited by law.”  The problem? Fonts, or typefaces, are only indirectly protected by law, and not in gross.  Sure, if your typeface is displayed as a result of computer software code operating on a device, then copyright protects the computer code necessary to display the typeface as a font. This is the main reason why certain fonts are licensed. But if the typeface is “copied” or used without authorization through other means, there is no recourse under copyright law.  Instead, one would have to turn to trademark protection of the stylized mark, which, absent a federal registration would be limited geographically by common law rights based on use, perhaps as narrowly as Atlanta or the State of Georgia.  And except for the famous typefaces of famous brands (for example the Coca-Cola script), such rights would be further limited by the goods in connection with which the typeface is used, to prohibit use on only identical or related goods (for example, complimentary goods, or goods within the likely “zone of expansion”), in this case, rival beverage or food products. So the claim that the “unauthorized use of the Crip-a-Cola font is prohibited by law,” while not entirely untrue, is mostly inaccurate.

Outlaws are known for having their criminal defense attorneys on speed dial.  Maybe it’s time to add the number for a good trademark attorney.

Better Call Saul? Only if he practices trademark law!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Las Vegas has a welcoming brand, probably best known by the nearly decade old famous and iconic slogan: What Happens in Vegas Stays in Vegas.

LVCVA owns it for gaming machines, slot machine services, and “promoting the Las Vegas, Nevada area as a destination for leisure and business travelers.”

If you’re not aware of the origin and the connection to Minnesota, here you go.

Las Vegas has welcomed the SHOT Show for many years, so here we are, once again, connecting with our many brand-toting friends in the industry.

Although I haven’t yet noticed evidence of it on the streets or the strip, the famous WHIVSIV slogan is reportedly back from its brief hiatus.

MGM Resorts’ Aria appears to be building on the meaning of Vegas with a fairly new slogan of its own that interestingly employs the term being used as a verb:

Given all the other places we’ve seen and reported on brandverbing to date, and now that we know it happens in Vegas too, only time will tell if it stays in Vegas:

As you know, we have welcomed the challenge by marketing types to press the edges and not fall into the assumed knee-jerk legal trap when it comes to weighing the true risks of genericide based on the verbing of brands, but if you’re not Google, this recommended reading from our archives — on the subject of trademark verbing and the risk of genericide, is still highly useful:

Who will be the next to jump on the brandverbing bandwagon? How long will the ride last?

All that said, Aria’s This is How We Vegas, should not be confused with This is How We Hotel, much less, This is How I Vegas, for sure, or even this one either:

 

They say one Bad Apple can spoil the bunch. But what can a Happy Apple do? It depends on which one you buy, but you’ll want to make sure you’ve got the right Happy Apple.

One Happy Apples brand involves fresh apples, apple cider, and caramel apples.  The other Happy Apple is a cannabis infused drink. Sure, the names are nearly identical, but does the candy apple company have a viable trademark infringement claim against the cannabis drink company? A recent ruling from the Western District of Washington involving this dispute suggests that brand owners may have an uphill battle enforcing their rights against the expanding cannabis industry.

For your consideration, a sample of the companies’ respective products is shown below.

         

The Happy Apple Company sued Tarukino, LLC (the producer of cannabis beverage) and requested a preliminary injunction. Notwithstanding the fact that both companies were using the nearly identical HAPPY APPLE wording, the court denied the request in an order issued January 9, 2019. In denying the request, the court’s reasoning, if adopted by other courts, could make it more difficult for brand owners to enforce their trademarks against cannabis products.

The court acknowledged that “both products are apple-related but the similarities end there.” When evaluating a claim of infringement, courts rely on a number of factors to determine whether there is a likelihood of confusion. In Washington (part of the Ninth Circuit), the courts follow the Sleekcraft factors.

As part of the analysis, courts look at how similar the marks are as they appear in the marketplace. This means even though the parties use HAPPY APPLES and HAPPY APPLE, the court looks at all of the packaging, including the font used, design elements, presence of house marks or company names, and other information. These facts seemed significant to the decision, as the judge concluded:

While they both contain the words “happy apple” they look markedly different. The mark used by Plaintiffs uses a different font and includes a cartoon of a caramel apple. The product sold by Defendants includes a picture containing two arrows, an apple, and the words “cannabis infused”, similar to a coat of arms.

Notably, the court appears to have only focused on the packaging for the caramel apple. Neither the cider nor the fresh apples include a carton of a candy apple. If I’m being honest though, the cartoon apple on the packaging looks like it may have had a bottle or two of the other Happy Apple.

The court also relied heavily on the significant regulation of cannabis products under Washington state law, reasoning:

cannabis-containing beverages can only be distributed and sold by retail stores licensed and regulated by the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board. These retail stores may only sell marijuana, marijuana concentrates, marijuana-infused products, and marijuana paraphernalia. Defendants’ products and Plaintiffs’ products are not likely to be sold in close proximity to each other, and it is unlikely that a purchaser would mistakenly enter a retail store selling marijuana or marijuana-related products and confuse a cannabis-containing apple beverage with the fresh apples, apple cider, or caramel apples sold by Plaintiffs.

At first glance, it seems that the court may be unfairly narrowing the likelihood of confusion as to whether a consumer might confuse the two products. While such a purchase would certainly qualify as consumer confusion, it is not the only type of consumer confusion. Consumer confusion can also occur if a consumer mistakenly believes that there is some type of connection, sponsorship, or other relationship between the Happy Apple cannabis product and the owner of the HAPPY APPLES brand. For example, whether a consumer might mistakenly believe the apples used to make the cannabis beverage were HAPPY APPLES brand apples.

Perhaps the court concluded the highly regulated nature of the industry and the distinctly different channels of trade were simply enough to avoid a likelihood of confusion, especially when comparing how the marks appear in the marketplace.

However, if the highly regulated nature of cannabis products truly carried the day for the defendant, it does not bode well for other trademark owners. All states that have legalized cannabis in any form have maintained strict regulation on how and where such products can be sold. If other courts adopt this court’s analysis, cannabis company defendants arguably begin any trademark infringement lawsuit with a loaded deck.

Of course, this is only a ruling on a preliminary injunction request, not a ruling of non-infringement. It is also possible the court relied on a number of other factors that simply were not referenced in the order. The HAPPY APPLE mark is not necessarily a strong mark, and certainly not well-known like HERSHEY’S or REESE’S. The term APPLE is either generic or descriptive, depending on the context, and HAPPY may not be entitled to a broad scope of protection.

As the cannabis industry continues to grow, there will undoubtedly be many more lawsuits. This is just one of many data points non-cannabis companies must use to determine where to set their trademark enforcement goal posts, and a data point for cannabis companies to use when evaluating new names and trademarks.

From time to time, I post squirrelly thoughts. Today, I wonder: Should a large company with famous, distinct trademarks sometimes hold back from aggressively enforcing those trademarks, even when doing so might at first appear to be a useful competitive strategy? I’m sure many executives at McDonald’s–the worldwide fast-food chain that it is so ubiquitous The Economist uses the prices of the Big Mac to measure purchasing power parity throughout the world–are questioning some past enforcement decisions.

If you haven’t heard, the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) issued a decision cancelling McDonald’s “Big Mac” trademark registration within the European Union. Although the decision was based on certain procedural and evidentiary issues, it resulted from a proceeding brought by McDonald’s European competitor “Supermac’s,” an Irish fast-food burger chain opened in 1978, in response to McDonald’s aggressive enforcement tactics.

Supermac’s offers a similar cornucopia of comfort food items, including chicken nuggets, french fries, and the “Mighty Mac,” which is:

A succulent double burger complete with two 100% Irish beef patties, melted cheese, crispy lettuce, diced onion with ketchup and burger sauce served in a toasted sesame seed bun.

Sound familiar? Here’s how McDonald’s describes the Big Mac:

Mouthwatering perfection starts with two 100% pure beef patties and Big Mac sauce sandwiched between a sesame seed bun. It’s topped off with pickles, crisp lettuce, onions and American cheese for a 100% beef burger with a taste like no other. It contains no artificial flavors, preservatives or added colors from artificial sources. Our pickle contains an artificial preservative, so skip it if you like.

Perhaps for these reasons, McDonald’s vigorously opposed Supermac’s trademark registrations a few years ago, arguing that the similarity between the names “McDonald’s” and “Supermac’s” (the Mc/Mac usage) would cause confusion among consumers.

Which one is the Big Mac, and which is the Mighty Mac? (hint: in order)

In 2017, Supermac’s retaliated against McDonald’s enforcement activities, seeking cancellation of McDonald’s own flagship marks. Central to Supermac’s narrative is McDonald’s “trademark bullying”–a topic we’ve discussed generally on DuetsBlog numerous times. Specifically, Supermac’s argued that McDonald’s purposefully engaged in anticompetitive conduct, including “registering brand names . . . which are simply stored away in a war chest to use against future competitors.”

It is not readily apparent that EUIPO ruled against McDonald’s on grounds related to bullying or overly-aggressive enforcement because, ostensibly, the ruling is based on McDonald’s failure to prove genuine use of “Big Mac” as a burger or restaurant name–which seems hard to believe given, among other things, The Economist’s Big Mac Index. However, Supermac’s is calling this a victory for small businesses, and a win in “a David versus Goliath battle against trademark bullying by a powerful multinational.” As a result of EUIPO’s ruling, companies may now freely use “Big Mac” throughout the entire EU. McDonald’s has said it intends to appeal the ruling.

EUIPO’s ruling seems absurd, but it makes me wonder if McDonald’s could have avoided this ruling, and the trademark bully label, by taking a less aggressive stance in enforcing its trademarks. Instead of seeking to prevent registration of the Supermac’s and other marks in a transparently-competitive posture, McDonald’s could have decided to target its enforcement on certain products and names (e.g., Mighty Mac), or simply compete on the basis of quality and price. McDonald’s could have also considered creative ways to discourage Supermac’s from using similar marks, employing humorous methods akin to Bud Light sending a medieval jester to deliver a cease and desist message on a scroll to Modist Brewing. Increasingly, brands need to seek a balance between uncovering and prosecuting all possible misuses and not enforcing rights at all. This latest EUIPO may, at its heart, be a lesson in more selective enforcement.

Update: This article was referenced, and Kyle was quoted, by the Washington Post on February 11, 2019.

With the holiday season half way over, and Christmas less than a week away, you’re running out of time to bring some holiday cheer to those around you. Luckily, Chipotle, Taco Bell, and Jimmy Dean have your back and they’re ready to help you surprise and delight your food-obsessed friends and family this Christmas.

Perhaps your spouse just can’t get enough burritos from Chipotle? Well, how about Chipotle-branded guacamole, salsa, or tin foil wrapping paper on their gifts?

Or maybe your childhood memories are filled with the scent of a hearty breakfast on Christmas morning at your grandparents’ home. I’m sure your grandma or grandpa would be giddy with excitement when their gift comes wrapped in this sausage scented Jimmy Dean wrapping paper.

If your best friend is more into Taco Bell. You could go all out and build a tower of gifts, with guacamole, cheese, and the rest of the ingredients filling your gift stack wrapped from top (tortilla) to bottom (tortilla).

In today’s age of social media and cable cutting, creative marketing efforts like the above could encourage and deepen brand loyalty among consumers. It’s also a whole lot of free advertising as consumers share this content on social media platforms like Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook. In fact, the Taco Bell CrunchWrapping paper apparently reached #16 on Amazon Canada’s Best Sellers list before it sold out, so the preliminary results suggest the campaign was a success. With this success, it would not be surprising to see more brands join in on the fun next year, so keep an eye out next November for 12 feet of high definition Arby’s roast beef!

The anticipation is building for this inaugural battle of the bands to raise money for a great cause:

“The Twin Cities advertising and communications industry lacks diversity. It’s a serious challenge. And it’s a problem that won’t be solved overnight. But there’s no reason we can’t have a little fun as we work to ensure our industry better reflects society as a whole.”

“The local marketing community will descend on First Avenue on December 6 for a friendly battle-of-the-bands competition that will raise scholarship money for diverse students seeking a career in the advertising and communications field. The scholarship fund is part of a new collaboration between the University of Minnesota’s College of Liberal Arts, CLAgency, its student-run agency, and The BrandLab.”

We look forward to spending time with our very creative friends in the Twin Cities advertising and communications community — thrilled to be the law firm sponsor of this incredible event, please join us at First Avenue Thursday December 6, from 5 – 11 PM ($20 tickets are available here).

OK, we won’t be singing the notes, strumming the guitars, pounding the keyboards, or blowing on any horns ourselves, but we’ll proudly beat the drum hard for this awesome competition and fundraiser event, as we sip on our signature cocktail for the evening, please come, see you soon:

–James Mahoney, Razor’s Edge Communications

It was festival time in Italy when I passed this food truck at an Abruzzo village’s celebration. I understand a little Italian (and speak even less), so what initially caught my eye was the crowd and the fun-loving couple serving up the goodies.

I knew that “Amici delle” on the sign and t-shirts means “friends of,” but didn’t know what “Fregne” means. Turns out, it’s the name that Elena Iannone gave to her special take on a type of Abruzzo pastry that she and her husband sell from the truck.

Only later, when I was gazing at the photo, did I spot the clever warning on the sign in the bottom-right corner of the case:

“Gli amici delle ‘Fregne’ declinano ogni responsabilita da un eventuale dipendenza!” (Loosely: Friends of the “Fregne” take no responsibility for you becoming addicted!)

How’s that for a not too subtle boast about the quality of your tasty pastries?

Not content with that, though, the Amici take it further. The offerings have names like Exotic, Delicate, Greedy, Widow, Kinky, and a few others that hint at the meaning of Fregne, which none of my Italian dictionaries defines. Suffice to say that the jovial Elena has both a sense of humor and a marketing instinct.

Most of the time when we talk about marketing and advertising campaigns, the subject companies are well-known, at least regionally, and often nationally or internationally. But lots of little one-offs, like the Amici delle Fregne, produce creative, consistently on-brand approaches that are qualitatively right up there with the big leaguers.

And like the big leaguers, when your marketing is good, your product better live up to it. Based on what I saw that night, when the Amici were happily handing over a steady stream of Fregne, they more than deliver on that front.