Who comes to mind when I list the following character traits: lives in a dystopian metropolis, has a deceased parent, fights criminals, rides a motorcycle, has seemingly-superhero strength, is fearless, has dark hair, and–oh, by the way–his name is “Wayne.” More than that, you learn all these facts about Wayne by watching a trailer for a series about Wayne on YouTube, which informs you throughout that Wayne is a character “from the guys who wrote Deadpool,” a fictional superhero. Take a look for yourself:

It should probably come as no surprise that many people watching the trailer–myself included–thought this Wayne might be “Bruce Wayne,” the well-known secret identity of Batman. The comments to the official trailer demonstrate as much. Consider, for example, the “top comment” for the trailer:

The Bruce Wayne most consumers know is the wealthy orphan owner of Wayne Enterprises by day, crime-fighting superhero by night. YouTube’s Wayne shares many of the same traits (except, perhaps, the wealth), and one could certainly believe that the Wayne series might be an origin story for one of the most popular superheros of all time. Of course, by the end of the trailer, you get the impression that the Wayne you’re watching probably isn’t (though there’s no disclaimer):

In total there are over 7,200 comments for the trailer at the time of writing this post. Since the official trailer, YouTube has released additional teaser trailers for the series, each making it clearer that Wayne probably isn’t Batman. Yet, viewers still aren’t quite sure:

What I find interesting about these comments is that they are a readily-available (though perhaps unreliable) data set for proving, or disproving, the existence of customer confusion. Assume that DC Comics, the owner of the Batman mark and Bruce Wayne character (which does not appear to have been registered, but to which DC Comics could have common law rights and copyright protection) could sue YouTube for infringement or dilution. Arguably, the comments on the Wayne trailers show that consumers are drawing a connection between DC Comics and the Wayne series given the name, mood of the series, and common character traits with Batman. In this, YouTube may be free riding on Batman’s popularity. Depending on just how many comments reference Batman, the comments themselves could serve as strong quantitative data of confusion–akin to the kind of survey data usually used to prove that element of a trademark claim.

On the other hand, many of the comments for the series do not reference Batman or Bruce Wayne. Do non-references indicate a lack of confusion, or perhaps a confusion that is dispelled quickly after watching the trailers? This relates to the doctrine of “initial interest confusion,” which is temporary confusion dispelled before a sale or some other commercial harm, but still may be actionable because the party creating the confusion free rides on another’s mark to gain attention. Since widespread access to the Internet, initial interest confusion cases have increased tenfold, but courts disagree about the vitality of the rule. Regardless, that confusion appears to persist in this situation–as demonstrated by the comments for each new trailer–shows that the confusion here may be of the continuing and uncured variety on which many trademark claims are based.

Wayne fully releases on YouTube in January 2019. There do not appear to be any lawsuits pending at the moment. And there does not appear to be a “Wayne” trademark registration for the series. But if YouTube (or the series’ creators) file for one, DC Comics could oppose the registration–and has done so for similar marks in the past. We’ll keep you updated with any new developments! In the meantime, let us know what you think in a comment below.

An NFL team and an NBA team are duking it out over trademarks with the word “UPRISING” to be used with eSports.

What is eSports you may ask? It is professional competitive video gaming. Anyone with a teenager has probably heard of Fortnite. Fortnite is a world-wide phenomenon. Over three nights during TwitchCon (which is a Fortnite competition), Fortnite averaged around 65,000 viewers per day across Twitch, YouTube and Facebook. However, there are also numerous other video games such as Hearthstone, Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six Siege, Star Craft II and Overwatch, among others. Indeed, Overwatch is related to the trademark dispute involving the owner of the New England Patriots.

The dispute involves the marks BOSTON UPRISING and NORTH UPRISING. Specifically, last month, the billionaire owner of the New England Patriots Robert Kraft’s company, Kraft Group, filed a Notice of Opposition against an application filed by the NBA’s Toronto Raptors for the mark NORTH UPRISING (stylized) in connection with clothing and other merchandise that is to be used with video games. The Kraft Group alleges that the stylized mark in the application is similar in stylization and font of its applied for stylized mark for BOSTON UPRISING.

Continue Reading The New England Patriots Are Ready To Battle Off The Field

Florida start-up entity BAD MOMS, LLC beat the producer of the movie with the same name to the punch! Specifically, the company sued the producer for declaratory judgment and an injunction preventing the movie producer from using the mark in connection with any of the Florida company’s goods and services or those related thereto. Both parties have pending applications for BAD MOMS and related trademarks. The lawsuit came after the movie producer sent demand letters to the Florida entity asking it to abandon its applications for BAD MOMS trademarks and cease using the mark. The movie producer brought counterclaims against the start-up company.

The Florida start-up company was founded by a single mom working her way through college and law school. The company organizes and hosts events for single-moms to share experiences, provide education and create a network. In addition, the company sells wines and spirits under the BAD MOMS mark.

Earlier this month, the dispute heated up when the movie producer asked a federal judge to sanction the start-up company for failing to follow a discovery order. The attorney founder of the company denied that the motion is warranted and asked for an extension of time to respond to the motion. The Court granted her request. The hearing on the motion is scheduled for Monday, October 29, 2018.

I have not seen the “BAD MOMS” movie but it was popular enough to spawn a sequel. Many of my friends told me it is a fun movie to watch, even if it is predictable. I heard that the following movie scenes were hysterical:  (1) grocery store scene; (2) limping dog scene and (3) the meeting to discuss the school board.

We will have to wait to see who wins the lawsuit and if the trademark dispute spurs more interest in the movies and/or the Florida company’s events and products.

The popular UGG® branded sheepskin boots are at the heart of a dispute in the Northern District of Illinois. Deckers Outdoor Corp. (“Deckers”) owns 29 federal registrations for the trademark UGG in connection with numerous goods and services, including footwear, clothing, wallets, passport covers, plush toys and retail store services. The company also has four pending applications for UGG to add to this family of UGG trademarks.

Deckers sued Australian Leather Pty. Ltd. and its owner (“Australian Leather”) for trademark infringement and patent infringement for selling “ugg” boots.

UGG® branded boots have become very popular. Fashion forward celebrities, such as Blake Lively and Sarah Jessica Parker, are often pictured wearing the comfortable boots as they go about their daily lives. This provides the brand with free publicity and even more exposure.

Defendant Australian Leather alleged that the ugg mark was generic for sheepskin boots and that the doctrine of foreign-equivalents supported this conclusion. The parties brought cross motions for summary judgment on these issues and others.

Steve Baird has written about trademark genericide before on DuetsBlog. Generic trademarks are those where a brand name has become synonymous with a general class of product or service. Famous examples include: aspirin (Bayer lost this valuable mark), elevator and linoleum. Losing a trademark to genericide allows competitors to benefit from the originating company’s goodwill without being guilty of trademark infringement. Companies have undertaken advertising campaigns to prevent or combat their trademarks from becoming generic. For example, the Velcro Companies came up with the hilarious video, “Don’t Say Velcro,” explaining that the product is a “hook and loop” with the brand name VELCRO®. The company even came up with a sequel video called “Thank You For Your Feedback” that Steve Baird wrote about previously on DuetsBlog.

Luckily for Deckers, the Illinois Court found that its UGG® trademark was not generic. Deckers introduced a survey undertaken in 2017 in the United States of 600 women between the ages of 16 and 54 wherein 98% of the respondents viewed UGG® as a brand name. These results were even better than past surveys commissioned by Deckers in 2004 where 58% of the respondents viewed the mark as a brand, and in 2011 where 89% of respondents viewed UGG® as a brand name.

In turn, Australian Leather asserted that “ugg” was generic among American surfers in the 1970s. The Court found this group to be too narrow. Australian Leather also introduced evidence of “ugg” being generic for sheepskin boots in Australia. Not surprisingly, the Court did not find this evidence to win the day. The Court noted that genericness in another country could be at least relevant to consumer perceptions in the United States. However, it is important to remember that whether a trademark is generic in another country has little bearing on whether it is generic in the United States. Trademark rights are territorial. Having a registered trademark in the United States does not give a company rights in that mark in Australia or other countries.

The Court explained that the foreign-equivalents doctrine did not warrant another result. It explained that “the doctrine is not a perfect fit for English to English [terms, rather, the doctrine] is generally used to analyze non-English terms used in the American marketplace.” Steve Baird did a nice job of explaining the appropriate use of this doctrine in his post, here.

What genericide stories have you heard about?  It can be an ongoing and costly battle for brand owners to protect their valuable intellectual property rights.

DJ Khaled and his son’s company sued an online retailer named Curtis Bordenave and his company, Business Moves Consulting, Inc., alleging that they are illegally using his and his son Asahd’s intellectual property.

Most of you likely know who DJ Khaled is, but I had not heard of him before reading about this dispute.  When I asked my friend about him on Friday night , she said “I know he is famous but I can’t tell you why.”  In looking at the Complaint, I found that “Khaled has enjoyed tremendous success in the United States and beyond as an entertainer, record producer, radio personality, radio label executive, and media celebrity.”  Wow. It appears I have been missing out.

DJ Khaled himself owns the KHALED mark in connection with musical sound recordings musical video records, disc jockey services, and other entertainment services.

DJ Khaled’s son, Asahd Tuck Khaled, is frequently featured on Instagram. The complaint asserts that Asahd has become a social media phenomenon.  He has lots of followers on Instagram (a social media I need to start using more—I have an account that I only use right now to communicate with my niece and nephew).

In addition, DJ Khaled is challenging Bordenave’s filing an application for “We The Best Lifestyle,” which infringes on his trademark WE THE BEST®.  DJ Khaled has registered the WE THE BEST® trademark in connection with, among other goods and services, musical recordings, entertainment services, online retail clothing store services, recordings and e-cigarette liquid.

Khaled frequently uses the saying “We the Best.”  Forbes even wrote an article entitled “How many Times can DJ Khaled say ‘We the Best’ in 40 seconds?” in November 2014.

Khaled worked the circuit using his catch phrase “We the Best” on shows such as The Ellen Show, Jimmy Kimmel Live, Live with Kelly and Ryan, The Chew, Rachel Ray, The Daily Show, The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, Late Night With Seth Meyers, and Good Morning America.  Khaled formed ATK Entertainment, Inc. to protect his infant son’s interests.

The complaint alleged that “Plaintiffs bring this action to halt the brazen attempt by trademark pirates…to usurp and trade on the names and trademarks of world-famous entertainer Rahled M. Khaled, known popularly as “DJ Khaled, and his 18-month old son, Asahd Tuck Khaled.”  It further describes Bordenave’s actions as “parasitic  conduct and bad-faith act.”  Specifically,  DJ Khaled and his son’s company brought various claims of violation of both Khaled and his son’s trademark rights and right of publicity under New York state law.  Not all states have such laws. Minnesota does not. See a former Duets post on the subject, here.

Specifically, DJ Khaled and his son’s company have brought claims under the New York Right of Privacy Act (N.Y. Civ. Rights Law §§ 50-51), trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act and common law, state law claims under the New York Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349), and commercial defamation.  Finally, they brought a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that they are not violating any rights of Bordenave or his company.

Khaled alleges damage because Bordenave attempted to interfere with a deal that Khaled had made with Nike to use his son’s name in conjunction with Michael Jordan to sell clothes.

This is not Bordenave’s first rodeo. The complaint states that he is a “serial trademark infringer.” Bordenave and his company have previously applied to register:

  • CARDI-B—which is the name of a well-known rapper
  • STORMI COUTURE—which it applied to register within a month of the birth of Kylie Jenner’s daughter Stormi Webster.

The complaint also alleges Bordenave improperly filed six other trademark applications based on other famous people, television stations or radio stations.

This appears to be a new trend with the rich and famous: promoting your kids names to sell products. Other famous parents have sought trademarks in connection with their children’s names. For example, Beyoncé and Jay Z applied for the mark BLUE IVY CARTER® in connection with numerous goods and services, including but not limited to, entertainment services, fragrances, cosmetics, skin care products, metal key chains and metal key rings, DVDs, CDs, and audio and visual sound recordings featuring musical performances, handheld and mobile digital electronic devices, baby teething rings, baby strollers and book, bags, and hair accessories. Beyoncé’s company is currently battling an Opposition filed by a company named Blue Ivy that is an entertainment and event planning firm focused on weddings and other elegant events.

We will have to see if DJ Khaled can stop Bordenave from capitalizing on his young son’s fame.

There is a battle brewing over songs by Minnesota’s own Prince.  I, for one, am anxious for the dispute to be resolved so we can enjoy these recordings. Who knows, there may be another worldwide hit “Purple Rain” out there.

The initial lawsuit was brought by Prince’s company Paisley Park Enterprises, which is now owned by his estate and its representative Comerica Bank & Trust, N.A.  (Collectively “Prince’s Estate”). Prince’s estate filed a Statement of Claim against George Boxill who was the sound engineer who worked with Prince on several music performance recordings. Before working with Prince, Mr. Boxill signed a confidentiality agreement. Prince’s estate states that the agreement explicitly stated that all recordings from the consultation remained the property of Paisley Park Enterprise. In 2006, Boxill worked with Prince to record five songs that have not been released yet. Other songs from this work were released on Prince’s album titled 3/21, which credited Boxill as a sound engineer. However, that same year, Boxill refused to return the five recordings to Paisley Park Enterprises. Prince’s estate now argues that this refusal to return the musical recordings violated his agreement.

A year after Prince’s untimely and tragic death, and ten years after working with Prince, Boxill mixed and edited the Prince songs. Boxill and Rogue Music Alliance, LLC and Deliverance, LLC (“music companies”) began promoting and selling the recordings under the name of “Prince” on the website www.princerogersnelson.com (the artist’s full name). They issued a press release announcing a nationwide release of an EP titled Deliverance that included songs by the late iconic Prince. This caused Prince’s estate to commence arbitration against Boxill and another case against Boxill and the music companies in federal court to stop the release of the songs and return them to Prince’s estate.

On April 20, 2018 (five days before the evidentiary hearing in the arbitration proceedings), Boxill and the music companies filed an emergency motion in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota to enjoin the arbitration. United States District Court Judge Wilhelmina Wright denied the motion.

Boxill and the companies filed another motion to stay the hearing, arguing that the Copyright Act preempted the state law claims asserted in the arbitration proceedings. Judge Wright again denied the motion and ruled that the Eight Circuit lacked jurisdiction to review her order.  Despite this second order, Boxill filed the appeal.  Prince’s estate not only opposed the appeal but also asked for sanctions against Boxill and the record companies. The Eighth Circuit denied both motions.

Hopefully, this dispute will be resolved quickly and we can all enjoy recordings from the late great Prince.

This is the question a court in the Southern District of New York will be dealing with in a recent lawsuit filed against Destiny Hope, a/k/a Miley Cyrus and others.  Does Miley’s chart topping 2013 hit song “We Can’t Stop” infringe on a song written by Michael May?

Jamaican songwriter and deejay Michael May goes by the stage name “Flourgon.”  This name was given to him because of his love of dumplings.  Specifically, Flourgon alleges that Miley and others, including her co-songwriters and record company, infringed on the copyright he has for the song “We Run Things.”  In the complaint, Flourgon alleges that  Miley’s co-writers acknowledge the Caribbean musical influence behind Miley’s song.

Trying to shake her sweet Disney image (i.e., Hannah Montana), Miley came out with her fourth album with the edgy song “We Can’t Stop.”  The sexy star in the racy video for the song stands in stark contrast with her wholesome Disney image.

The lawsuit highlights Miley’s lyrics “We run things/ Things don’t run we.”   Flourgon asserts that his “unique, original and creative lyrical phrasing ‘We run things, Things no run we’ is not syntactically correct, and is a conspicuous departure from proper English grammar with its improper sentence construction such that it is noticeably unique, creative and original thereby mandating further inquiry, which should have been conducted by Defendants . . .”

In addition to damages, Flourgon seeks injunctive relief to prevent Miley from selling or performing the song. Miley and the others will be filing an answer denying the allegations or another pleading in the coming weeks.

You can compare the lyrics of Miley’s song by looking at the lyrics here versus Flourgon’s song here. What do you think?

New ideas, creations, and business ventures are often the product of collaboration.  If lawyers had their way, a written agreement would precede every creative collaboration.  Of course, this is not the case.  Collaborators often do not seek advice of counsel, or see the need for an agreement, until after the new idea, creation, or venture is well underway.  As a result, statutes and case law operate to define the joint ownership rights.  Each type of IP affords slightly different rights to joint owners.

Patent

A patent, whether design or utility, provides the patent holder with the right to exclude others from making, using, selling, offering to sell, and importing the patented invention.  Where a patent is owned by multiple entities, each joint owner has the right to independently license any of these rights.  Moreover, patent joint owners do not have a duty to account to one another.  This means that joint owners do not have to share profits with one another.  However, the consent of all owners is generally needed to sue to enforce the patent.  In practice, this means that one joint owner can block others from suing.  Consent of all owners is also needed to exclusively license the patent.

Copyright

A copyright holder has a set of rights, including the rights to reproduce, distribute, make derivative works of, perform, and display, the copyrighted material.  Similar to patents, each joint owner of a copyright may individually exercise these rights without consent of other joint owners.  Each joint owner may additionally license these rights.  However, there is one notable difference from patent law: the duty to account.  Each joint copyright owner has a duty to share profits obtained from the copyright with all joint owner.  Another distinction from patent law is that joint copyright owners may each sue to enforce the copyright without consent of other owners.  However, consent of all owners is also needed to exclusively license the copyright.

Trade Secret

Due to the nature of trade secrecy, the law of joint ownership of trade secrets is not as well defined as with patents and copyrights.  In general, case law suggests that joint owners of a trade secret may each use the trade secret for their individual business purposes.  However, it is unclear whether joint owners have a duty to account.  While consent of all joint owners is likely not needed to sue for misappropriation of the trade secret, the owners must consent to exclusively license the trade secret.

Trademark

The prospect of a jointly owned trademark is something of a different nature.  By definition, a trademark is an identifier of a single source.  While multiple parties can own a trademark, if each party is permitted to use the mark independently in the marketplace, by definition, the mark is no longer designating a single source.  Additionally, the law is unclear on whether joint trademark owners have a duty to account, or whether they must consent for an infringement suit.  In many cases, a co-branding agreement may be a good alternative to a jointly owned trademark registration.  Alternatively, multiple parties may want to jointly own a single entity, which in turn owns the mark.

Consider that SUPER HEROES is often used in conjunction with DC COMICS or MARVEL, which are source designators. What do you think? Are DC and Marvel asking for a genericness battle?

Jointly owned trademarks are rare, but not unheard of.  Arguably the most famous jointly owned trademark is owned and maintained by two competitors.  DC Comics and Marvel Comics have co-owned the mark SUPER HEROES for decades.  This seems a strange duo since the two companies are not only direct competitors, but also the only major players in the comic book realm.  Nonetheless, the two entities have jointly owned the mark since 1979, and are known for diligently enforcing itSome wonder if this is an example of trademark misuse, as SUPER HEROES does not designate a single source.  A consumer might identify a product with SUPER HEROES as being from either DC Comics or Marvel Comics.  The companies’ fierce enforcement efforts may be an attempt to head off an inevitable genericness fight.

Sandwiched between 90 degree days in a Minnesota summer, the idea of Halloween wasn’t on my radar – until I learned about the latest dispute between candy giants Mars and Hershey’s.

Mars and its subsidiary own many well-known candy brands, including M&Ms, Snickers, Twix, Skittles, Life Savers, and others. Not to be outdone, Hershey maintains its own stable of popular brands in addition to Hershey brand, including Kisses, Reese’s, Twizzlers, and others. Even though the parties are major competitors, it appears the two bonbon behemoths don’t frequently compete in proceedings at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, except for extensions of time to oppose and a handful of oppositions settled quickly.

In light of the history, Hershey may have been spooked when it first learned that Mars filed a Notice of Opposition last month against Hershey new application to register the mark SCARY in connection with “Candy.” The Notice of Opposition (available here) claims that the term SCARY is “highly descriptive” and “generic” in connection with candy, especially candy sold or promoted during the Halloween season. Mars alleges that “SCARY is like ‘HAUNTED’ ‘SPOOKY’ or ‘BOO,’ only SCARY is more frequently used.” In light of this, Mars alleges that “SCARY is no more capable of being a trademark for candy than is TRICK OR TREAT.”

Mars’s arguments have some bite. I don’t recall the specific brands from my candy hauls on the streets of my Iowa hometown, but I remember a lot of Halloween imagery: ghosts, pumpkins, monsters, and others. Yet I’m not sold on the idea that SCARY is descriptive, let alone generic, for candy. To be descriptive, a term must immediately describe “an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of the specified goods or services” (according to the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure). Scary doesn’t seem like it describes the candy, but instead merely the marketing used to advertise the candy. Establishing that SCARY is generic is even more difficult, because “generic terms are terms that the relevant purchasing public understands primarily as the common or class name for the goods or services” (TMEP). If there is a genus specifically for candy marketed for trick or treating, the genus is probably “Halloween Candy,” not “Scary Candy.”

A claim that might have a better chance of success, however, is that the term SCARY does not function as a trademark, but instead is understood by consumers as conveying information about the goods. Consumers might perceive the term scary as indicating the candy is meant for use in the Halloween season, or that the term SCARY is somehow ornamental or informational. Unfortunately, Hershey filed the application on an intent-to-use basis, so Hershey has not yet used the mark. As a result, it is difficult to evaluate whether Hershey’s use constitutes use as a trademark.

While Mars has a colorable claim, I don’t see SCARY as crossing the line into the descriptive category of the marks. I think SCARY is likely used by a number of third-parties, but I think this means that consumers perceive SCARY (and similar variations) as being a weak designation of source, but not necessarily descriptive. Notwithstanding, Mars has legitimate concerns. If Hershey obtains a registration, Hershey could take a broad view of the scope of its rights, seeking to prevent others from using SCARY or similar terms, even against third-parties who may be making a non-trademark use in connection with Halloween candy. For example, Mars uses the term SPOOKY on the candy below:

Mars might be fighting to protect itself and others in the industry from the potential of Hershey wielding a SCARY registration as a sword to unfairly inhibit competitors from using certain Halloween imagery. This goal seems reasonable under the circumstances, even if the claim of “mere descriptiveness” has some weaknesses. It would not be the first time a trademark owner relied on a registration to push competitors away from non-infringing uses.

Notwithstanding Mars’s good intentions, it might be difficult for Mars to claim a “white hat” in this battle, at least with a straight face. Mars owns its own registration for SPOOKY SHAPES for “candy” (disclaiming SHAPES). With that in mind, Mars might be wishing it hadn’t alleged that “SCARY is like . . . SPOOKY” in the Notice of Opposition. If SCARY is like SPOOKY, then it is hard to see why Mars’s use of SPOOKY is a legitimate trademark use, but Hershey’s use of SCARY is not. While the statement doesn’t prevent Mars from prevailing, it does suggest that the purported harm to the industry may be exaggerated. But who knows, perhaps Mars has a few tricks up its sleeve.

I laughed when I saw yesterday’s Adweek article about Heinz adopting Don Draper’s “Pass the Heinz” pitch from the hit show “Mad Men.”  Given the lackluster creativity observed from the Super Bowl ads, have we actually reached a point where a creative says “hey remember that Mad Men episode? let’s just do that!” and the client agrees?  I hope not, and I have to believe that that isn’t what happened here.

According to the Adweek article, the fictitious Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce is given credit for the work alongside DAVID The Agency – an international agency with offices in Miami, Brazil and Argentina.

Their logo reminds me of someone – how about you?

DAVID

Setting aside the strong possibility that this agency (or at least members of it) created the work featured in the Mad Men episode, this real life fact pattern reads like an Intellectual Property law school exam.  What risks does Heinz have in adopting this work?  Who authored the creative work and who may own the copyright in the creative work?  Is DAVID’s use of the print ads an infringement of that copyright?  Could the creators and writers of Mad Men use the Heinz trademark in this matter without their permission?

The story here is “tantalizingly incomplete,” if I may borrow Draper’s words from the clip.  Assuming this was executed with some forethought, there are likely one or more agreements involved.   The creatives behind the ad campaign featured in Mad Men may have assigned the work to the owners of Mad Men as a “work made for hire.”  Someone from Heinz or DAVID The Agency may have obtained permission from the copyright owners of Mad Men to then use the work.  There might even be a product placement agreement with Heinz that would later allow Heinz to use the Sterling Cooper campaign later in real life, and maybe even give Heinz the right to select the agency that creates the Sterling Cooper campaign.

Taking this outside of the fictitious context, what about the fact that this agency essentially stole the pitch from Sterling Cooper?  Most agencies would rightfully have an issue with another agency using their pitch.  Does this have any negative effect on the industry?

From a brand perspective, what do you think about Heinz adopting this “50-year-old campaign” from Mad Men?   And, for the agency, is there any benefit to them for just tipping in Don Draper’s shot from the 3-point arc?  Of course I wasn’t going to make it through this whole post on the eve of the best sports weekend of the year without throwing in a March Madness reference – especially with my team in both the men’s and women’s brackets this year.  GO MARQUETTE!