Search results for: eat more kale

Unless you have created a highly stylized, distinctive, graphic representation of a generic designation, perhaps something like the Miller Lite script, don’t bother trying to own or enforce it:

 

Most likely, you’ll end up regretting the decision to enforce, when the court of public opinion weighs in, after the social media shame-wagon flogs it as another example of trademark bullying.

Lagunitas Brewing filed this complaint in federal district court for trademark infringement against Sierra Nevada’s Hop Hunter IPA, because the generic acronym IPA (standing for India Pale Ale) appeared in black all capital letters (perhaps the lowest common denominator for stylization):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lagunitas claimed: “This proposed design uses all capital, large, bold, black ‘IPA’ lettering in a font selection that is remarkably similar to the iconic Lagunitas design and, indeed, is the central and most prominent feature of the new Sierra Nevada design, emulating the iconic Lagunitas family of IPA trademarks. . . . ”

The thing is, Lagunitas probably has the potential for a very, very narrow trademark right in its stylization of the IPA graphic, but I’d hardly call Sierra Nevada’s version “remarkably similar” — moreover, I’d suggest that near identity and probably other similar trade dress elements would be needed to have a plausible likelihood of confusion claim.

Lagunitas seems to have forgotten how it explained in far more detail — in paragraph 16 of its complaint — the claimed distinctiveness of its graphic representation of the generic IPA acronym on product packaging:

“The unique ‘IPA’ lettering used in the Lagunitas ‘IPA’ Family of Trademarks has a distinctive serif font, distinctive kerning (or letter spacing), between the ‘P’ and the ‘A’, slightly aged or weathered look, with uneven areas on each of the letters, and the elimination of any periods between the letters. These elements together are unique to the iconic design of the Lagunitas IPA. The overall effect of these factors (the all-capital, large, bold, black serif lettering style, and the placement with respect to other wording and design elements) creates a unique, iconic design that is associated with and signifies Lagunitas and its associated reputation for excellence in the craft brew industry and among consumers.”

Assuming for the moment that Lagunitas has a narrow trademark right in its graphic representation of the generic IPA acronym, the problem remains, all the claimed elements aren’t present in the Sierra Nevada Hop Hunter IPA package design.

Probably the most unique aspects of the visual identity (the “slightly aged or weathered look, with uneven areas on each of the letters”) are not present in the Sierra Nevada design, putting aside the fact that the HOP HUNTER trademark obliterates at least a quarter of the IPA lettering.

It’s kind of like complaining about the use of the words “Eat More Kale” when the words are spelled correctly without dripping black “Eat Mor Chikin” ink from cows with poor grammar and penmanship, or perhaps it’s also like targeting a monochrome red shoe when the non-traditional red color trademark covers only the red sole portion of the shoe as a contrasting color.

Let’s face it, Lagunitas is another painful reminder to brand owners that selecting appropriate trademark enforcement targets is no less important when narrow as opposed to strong trademark rights are claimed. Yes, the Lagunitas overreach reminds me of the ill-advised enforcement targets pursued by both Chic-fil-A and Christian Louboutin.

Having said all that, we remain hopeful this all ends well for Lagunitas.  Hopefully the wisdom of the Lagunitas’ apology and the almost immediate withdrawal of the lawsuit permits the brand to get back to business and avoid years worth of legal fees and further media flogging.

Legal types, would you have brought the Lagunitas’ trademark infringement claim?

Marketing types, how would you grade the Lagunitas’ apology in terms of content and timing?

Just so you know, this is not the post I planned to write today. Hat tip to you, Bo!

It has been exactly one year since Bo Muller-Moore — the “Eat More Kale” guy from Vermont — submitted a comprehensive 71-page response to the registration refusal based on “Eat Mor Chikin” issued by the USPTO on March 27, 2012, after a dubious Letter of Protest was filed by Chick-fil-A and surprisingly granted by the USPTO on December 22, 2011.

Given my interest and coverage of this story (here, here, here, here, here, here, and here), and my meaty devotion to our dear readers, I’ve been periodically checking in on the status of Mr. Moore’s EAT MORE KALE application, anxiously awaiting the USPTO’s response to Moore’s thorough missive. So my plan was to write today about how the USPTO has laid a real egg that it continues to sit on — taking no action at all for an entire year, making me want to raise this question again (albeit in a different light): Is the USPTO acting like a (surrogate) trademark bully?

That is all unnecessary now, since the USPTO just yesterday appears to have approved Mr. Moore’s EAT MORE KALE application for publication, opening it up for third party challenge:

“Status: Approved by the examining attorney for publication but has not yet published for opposition. Although rare, withdrawal of approval prior to publication may occur after final review. The opposition period begins on the date of publication.”

Given it took an entire year to handle this hot potato at the USPTO, it’s hard to imagine a “rare” withdrawal of approval will occur at this point, but with this case, I suppose anything is possible.

A better question, it seems to me is: Does Chick-fil-A have the stomach to fight in public over this one, or will the social media shame-wagon cause it to chicken out (again)?

Chick-fil-A’s objection to Moore’s Eat More Kale tagline is not new, going all the way back to 2006, according to the New York Times, but public encouragement for Moore’s defiance dates back to at least 2011, around the time when the New York Times covered the story. Moore’s Kickstarter funding project for a documentary to expose Chick-fil-A’s enforcement as trademark bullying has raised almost $90,000.00 to date.

How much more is likely to be raised if Chick-fil-A files a formal Notice of Opposition?

As much as I’d like to continue to write about and eventually see a full-length documentary on this dispute, if I were Chick-fil-A, I’d let it go, without even a cluck — Eat More Kale that is — and leave Bo to fund a much shorter film instead.

What would you do if you were Chick-fil-A, besides not start this mess in the first place?

To our PR friends, how would you advise Chick-fil-A, now that it appears the opposition window at the USPTO will be open soon?

And, please don’t recycle this previous Chick-fil-A statement: “We must legally protect and defend our ‘Eat mor chikin’ trademarks in order to maintain rights to the slogan.”

Yes, Chick-fil-A, you have enforceable rights in EAT MOR CHIKIN, but you don’t need to pursue EAT MORE KALE to maintain rights to EAT MOR CHIKIN. Yes, that is a period.

UPDATE: October 14, 2014 is the currently scheduled date of publication for opposition, so stay tuned.

Social media weighs in on the dispute over use of the mark ROUBAIX in connection with bicycles.  A lawsuit was brought by Specialized Bicycle Components, Inc. (“Specialized”) who owned the registration for the mark in Canada against Dan Richter.  Mr. Richter operated the Café Roubaix Bicycle Shop and sells a Café Roubaix wheel and rim.  Social media picked up on the story focusing on Mr. Richter being a veteran of the Afghanistan war and bashed Specialized.  Bicycle enthusiasts raised money for Mr. Richter’s defense of the lawsuit and lawyers offered to represent him for free.  Twitter followers sought to boycott Specialized.

Advanced Sports International (“ASI”) puts an interesting “spoke” into this bicycle wheel trademark dispute.  Specifically, ASI asserts that it has worldwide rights to the ROUBAIX mark in connection with bicycles.  I note that ASI owns the United States trademark registration for the ROUBAIX mark in connection with “bicycles” in International Class 12 at U.S. Registration No. 1,686,272.  Further, Specialized licensed use of the ROUBAIX mark from ASI.  It will be interesting to see how the dispute with Mr. Richter affects the relationship between ASI and Specialized.  Will the improper (according to ASI) registration for the mark in Canada be transferred to ASI?  Will ASI no longer allow Specialized to use the mark?  Will ASI require notification before Specialized attempts to police the mark again?

As for the veteran bike shop owner, it was reported by Bicycle Retailer and Industry News that he could continue to use the Roubaix name.  A spokesperson for ASI stated that he did not believe the bike shop owner was trying to confuse consumers that his bike shop or wheels were associated with ASI’s ROUBAIX road bike.  Indeed, he did not believe consumers would be confused.  ASI was going to license use of the trademark to the bike shop owner.  Query whether the same result would have occurred without the social media backlash.

Social media is here to stay, so we will likely hear about more cases like this one where trademark rights are at the forefront of a Twitter battle or even a boycott.  Will social media be a tool for others to “police” trademark owners who actually overreach?  Will social media be unfairly used to blacklist and disparage innocent trademark owners who are merely trying to legitimately protect their valuable trademark rights?  Will legitimate trademark owners cave to boycotts and bad press resulting in a loss (or narrowing) of their valuable trademark rights?  I hope not.  Should these disputes be decided by judges, Examining Attorneys, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and others tasked with determining trademark rights?

Are you aware of other cases where social media has played a part in affecting a trademark dispute?  You may recall the media blitz and boycott against Chick-fil-A’s efforts to prevent federal registration of “Eat More Kale” based on Chick-fil-A’s “Eat Mor Chikin” tagline and trademark.  I am sure that this is not the last time DuetsBlog will comment on social media taking on overreaching trademark owners or hammering an innocent trademark owner’s legitimate enforcement efforts.

As Chick-fil-A enters the Twin Cities market, it has begun another creative billboard campaign touting the “End of Burgerz — Koming Soon,” with no sign of the “Eat Mor Chikin” campaign, as of yet anyway. Bo Muller-Moore of Vermont — owner of the “Eat More Kale” trademark — probably would prefer that the billboards read: “The End of Trademark Bullying — Koming Soon!”

As you know, we’ve been writing about the highly publicized trademark bullying allegations associated with Chick-fil-A’s unrelenting pursuit of Vermont-Native Bo Muller-Moore’s “Eat More Kale” trademark, for a couple of years now:

I’m on record as viewing the “Eat Mor Chikin” v. “Eat More Kale” trademark enforcement claim as baseless and an example of overreaching, yet Chick-fil-A has succeeded in obtaining the USPTO’s powerful assistance in preventing registration of the Eat More Kale trademark. First, with the granting of a dubious Letter of Protest, then with a registration refusal being made by the Examining Attorney who had previously seen no trademark conflict, and most recently with the Managing Attorney at the USPTO taking over the file to reinforce the likelihood of confusion refusal and add even more substantive bases for refusal.

Given those developments, it’s presently looking like a tough road at the USPTO, so I’ve been wondering outloud whether Mr. Muller-Moore will ask a federal district court judge to declare that the “Eat More Kale” mark is not infringing or diluting Chick-fil-A’s “Eat Mor Chikin” mark, since a federal court decision declaring no likelihood of confusion would compel the USPTO to withdraw the likelihood of confusion refusal based on Chick-fil-A’s “Eat Mor Chikin” mark. Doing so also could provide a forum where monetary relief could be awarded to Bo if Chick-fil-A’s claim are found baseless and overreaching.

A couple of weeks ago Bo Muller-Moore updated his trademark counsel of record information at the USPTO to add Ashlyn J. Lembree of the University of New Hampshire IP & Transaction Clinic.

The current USPTO prosecution file shows that Mr. Muller-Moore has a September 7, 2013 deadline to respond to the Managing Attorney’s latest bases for registration refusal, so we’ll know soon enough whether Muller-Moore suspends his pending application to bring a declaratory judgment action in federal district court in search of a more friendly forum or whether he tries once more at the USPTO with his newly expanded legal team.

Where do you come down on the “Eat Mor Chikin” v. “Eat More Kale” trademark dispute? And, what action would you recommend to Bo?

Two months ago, our attention seized on a nutty and woefully deficient USPTO examination of a trademark application to register — Mr. Wonderful — for roasted nuts, and nut-based snack foods, among other food products, given the prior WONDERFUL trademark rights owned by these folks:

Just like clockwork, events now appear to be playing out as expected, so keep your eyes peeled and your watches synchronized. Last Friday, The Wonderful Company LLC, filed an extension of time to oppose registration, so the new deadline for opposition is September 8, 2018.

We’ll likely soon see whether a Letter of Protest was filed behind the scenes, giving the USPTO a chance to correct this mistake and issue a likelihood of confusion refusal —  as it’s hard to imagine the Examining Attorney’s failure to issue a refusal won’t be considered clear error, so stay tuned.

Wonderful likely has made contact with Mr. Wonderful by now — my question would be, how hard will Mr. Wonderful play to salvage the other food items currently in the identification of goods?

What do you think, are these goods sufficiently related to roasted nuts to become toast, as well?

Jellies and jams; Banana chips; Dried fruit-based snacks; Fruit preserved in alcohol; Nut butters; Olive oil for food; Potato chips; and Yogurts.

It’s a wonderful life, collaborating with brand owners and marketing teams to advance their goals.

Our work for brand owners also involves a collaboration of sorts with the U.S. Trademark Office.

We work with the USPTO to obtain registrations for our clients and this triggers USPTO obligations.

As such, when examining applications, the USPTO must search its records for conflicting marks.

It also must refuse applications for marks that are confusingly similar to prior registered marks.

Mistakes happen, but sadly, if the USPTO misses a proper refusal, the brand owner holds the bag.

So, when the USPTO doesn’t do its job well, the brand owner is put in a position to spend money.

Several weeks ago, I expressed near certainty that the USPTO would refuse registration of Kevin O’Leary’s (of Shark Tank fame) application to federally register his nickname — Mr. Wonderful — given another’s well-established, federally-registered trademark rights in WONDERFUL for nuts:

Surisingly, the USPTO has issued no refusal, and the Mr. Wonderful mark -for nuts- has been approved for publication. If you’re at a loss how that can be, here is the USPTO’s search summary.

As it reveals, the “session duration” lasted 218 seconds; not a single “wonderful” mark was “viewed” during examination, yet hundreds of “mr” trademark records were, maybe even him?

The “mr” portion of the search was narrowed to focus on the nuts class of goods (IC 29), but strangely this wasn’t done for the “wonderful” portion, leading to zero “wonderful” viewed records.

Let’s just call this oversight for what it is, not exactly a wonderful trademark examination by the USPTO — literally and figuratively. The Mr. Wonderful approval — for nuts –looks like clear error.

Were we in Wonderful’s camp, we’d be thinking about a Letter of Protest to have the USPTO issue the likelihood of confusion refusal, because it costs peanuts compared to a full-blown opposition.

Trademark types, would you get crackin’ on a Letter of Protest, were you holding Wonderful’s bag?

Marketing types, how nuts would you be spending a lot more than peanuts, if the USPTO doesn’t acknowledge clear error and issue the refusal, to help make a Notice of Opposition unnecessary.

To the extent you’re in Mr. Wonderful’s camp, how would you approach a registration refusal, knowing that 15 of the 16 live “wonderful” marks at the USPTO for nuts are Wonderful’s marks?

Ron, you’re so vain, you probably think this post is about you, don’t you, don’t you — actually, it is, or, let’s say, more about your recent in-actions — still, I hope you enjoy this cute little melody.

By the way, before fully discussing how you walk into a party or onto a yacht, do I detect a hint of apricot in the color of your stylish Likelihood of Confusion garb, might there be a matching scarf?

The week before last, walking through the Minneapolis skyway system, while reading our good friend Ron Coleman’s explanation of “why I let my trademark registration lapse,” I kid you not, a second and more physical spectacle emerged right before my eyes when crossing over 5th Street:

Ron, do I need to connect the dots for you on the striking parallels of the mysterious energy that you generated when you gave away the thing you (once) loved? Like the total eclipse of the sun?

Yes Ron, love you like my own brother, but if you were Dave, I’d help him back on the tracks, and remind him of what less than 12 cents a day buys, for those incontestable and powerful standard-character federally-registered rights over a second ten-year term. Remember, sword and shield.

The decisive inaction in allowing the lapse, reminds me of the forgotten and invisible value of deterrence. And, while I’m on board with much of the irreverent tone you can display from time to time, are you now suggesting that other brand owners turn their circle ®s upside down too?

I won’t put words in your mouth, but are you advocating for unilateral registration disarmament? Even if not, I’m left wondering, are the children or watchful brand owners likely to be confused?

After all, chalking up the original ten year old decision to federally-register your blog’s namesake as a senseless and unnecessary goof, today, because you haven’t (yet) found an occasion to enforce it, requires the omnipresent convergence of 20/20 hindsight and a flawless crystal ball for the future, all in one moment. Again, deterrence my friend, it’s beautiful and invisible.

And, as to the question of vanity, far be it for me to question yours, but isn’t tossing your circle ® in the trash, a little like saying to the world, “look mom, no hands,” after learning to ride a bike, and then daring unwise children, to knock you off? Pun and double-meaning, fully intended.

Now Ron, I know you relish a formidable challenge, like when you went (not to Saratoga), but to Washington, D.C., and your client (not horse), naturally won, the trademark case of the year. But, before leaving the question of vanity though, just wondering, after reading the favorable Tam decision, tell me, did you have one eye in the mirror, as you watched yourself gavotte?

Still Ron, don’t you think the modest investment of less than 12 cents a day is worth putting the USPTO in the position to, and give it, the statutory charge to do your enforcement bidding for you? Don’t you? Even if someone, as you seem to invite, tries something? Don’t you, don’t you?

And here’s an underworld spy question for you Ron, is there no room for the Easy Button, in your commercial litigator’s toolbox, just in case you need it, let’s say, down the road in a few?

Ron, please don’t look at me that way! When you have your hat strategically dipped below one eye, I’m left with the feeling you think I’m either still quite naïve, or full of it, nothing in between.

By the way, have you actually verified that your Likelihood of Confusion® registration never formed a bar to others at the USPTO? There are tools for that, courtesy of Towergate Software.

What we do know for certain is, it will no more, if it ever did. And, if you ever want to avoid the need for a formal opposition at some distant point in the future, if the USPTO doesn’t agree with your assessment that someone had their sights on messing with you, without your ®, you can kiss the Letter of Protest tool goodbye, as this little guy — ™ — doesn’t cut it.

Please let’s be honest Ron, it’s always easier to hang on to something and hold it in your hands than discard it and try to get it back later. I realize you’re feeling confidence in letting it go in this moment, but what if the facts or your mind change down the road?

Dumpster diving is a messy proposition. What the USPTO granted yesterday doesn’t always come as easy, if at all, tomorrow or the next day. As we all know, the USPTO is not impervious to changing its mind on how it views certain things, especially when it comes to judging the line between trademark suggestiveness and descriptiveness.

Who am I to judge your calculation of value? But let’s not forget, Ron we’ve all seen your fancy Likelihood of Confusion branded apparel. By the way, will we see those fancy threads in Seattle? Or, are they about to become a collectors item on eBay?

Let me just say, had you presented your apricot hat in hand in Orlando, and passed it around the room, I’m thinking you’d have collected more than the price of another ten year term, given the enormous and generous contributions you’ve made to our guild over the last few decades.

Ron, don’t get me wrong, I fully realize that you’re where you should be all the time, and I completely admire your sensitivity to the evil constructs of vanity, but I fear that the little voice whispering in your ear has spilled some clouds in your coffee on this one. What about the children who may be watching? Aren’t you concerned about the implication of what you seem to be saying, simply just TM it instead?

Ron, having said all that, I hope we can still be friends, as I have no doubt, there a plenty of others still dreaming that they’d be your partner:

Last, but not least, Ron, will you need reminding that yet another price of purging your vanity is that you’ll need to remove all those fancy trademark registration symbols from your blog?

– Draeke Weseman, Weseman Law Office, PLLC

Bandwagoners everywhere have reason to celebrate following a recent opinion out of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In Juice Generation, Inc. v. GS Enterprises LLC, Appeal No. 2014-1853, (Fed. Cir. July 20, 2015), the Federal Circuit reviewed the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s assessment that consumers were likely to be confused between the mark “Peace Love and Juice” for a juice bar and the mark “Peace & Love” for a restaurant. Sending the case back to the Board for further review, the Federal Circuit determined that the Board failed to adequately consider the weakness of a mark where there are numerous registered and unregistered third-party marks that incorporate similar phrases. For example, the Federal Circuit listed the following marks it considered as evidence that the combination of “peace” and “love” is a weak mark when used in connection with food:

PEACE LOVE NOODLES HE AI MIAN

PEACE LOVE AND PIZZA

PEACE LOVE YOGURT

PEACE, LOVE & ICE CREAM

PEACE, LOVE AND LITTLE DONUTS

PEACE.LOVE.DÖNER

PEACE, LOVE & BEER

PEACE, LOVE, AND CHOCOLATE

PEACE LOVE & OATS

PEACE. LOVE. & GOOD FOOD.

PEACE, LOVE AND FRENCH FRIES

PEACE, LOVE & CUPCAKES

PEACE LOVE BURRITOS

PEACE, LOVE, AND BURGERS

PEACE · LOVE · PANCAKES

PEACE LOVE & BARBECUE

PEACE, LOVE & CRUNCH

PEACE LOVE GRANOLA

PEACE, LOVE AND PINOT

PEACE. LOVE. TREATS.

PEACE, LOVE, AND CHOPS

PEACE, LOVE, AND HOT DOGS

PEACE. LOVE. PASTA.

PEECE LUV CHIKIN

PEACE, LOVE & CHEESECAKE

PEACE LOVE AND APPLE PIE.

That’s a lot of peace and love and . . . food! This led the Federal Circuit to conclude that consumers may be accustomed to distinguishing “peace love blank” marks in the food service industry on the basis of minute distinctions. As a result, these marks deserve only a very narrow scope of protection.

As some readers may know, the enthusiasm for “peace love blank” marks comes from a 1970’s song written by Nick Lowe and performed by Elvis Costello called “(What’s so Funny ‘Bout) Peace Love and Understanding.” You can see it performed here. Apparently, besides being funny it made people hungry.

Today’s generation may not have its appetite satisfied so easily. Just look at recent moves taken by Taylor Swift. Last fall, she applied to register trademarks across a wide variety of merchandise for popular lyrics off her album, 1989, including “Cause We Never Go Out of Style,” “Party Like its 1989,” and “This Sick Beat.” It doesn’t take much imagination to see the trademark opportunities for hungry bandwagoners that may have been thwarted, for example: “Cause Cheeseburgers Never Go Out Style,” “Eat Like its 1989,” and “This Sick Beet.”

Anyway, all of this talk about food reminded me of another trademark dispute involving a common message telling us to eat more of something. And, in case you didn’t notice it on the long list above, Chick-fil-A happens to own a registration for the mark “Peece Luv Chikin.” So, Bo, how about a little “Peace Love and Kale” for your next t-shirt? I’d buy one!

In the meantime, I guess we’ll just . . .

keepcalm

When claims of trademark infringement make the news, it is often because a billion dollar corporation is suing old man Donaldson’s tavern for trademark infringement (Although, McDonaldson’s might have been a bad choice…).  You’ve got your Ikeas, your Googles, Chick-fil-As, and your NFLs of course (not the National Forensics League, they’re cool).  David can fight back and win, but David never throws the first punch.

Well, as the saying goes, every once in a blue moon, there’s an exception to the rule. And our exception to the David-Starting-Fights-Rule is Mr. Jeff Moses. Jeff owns the MBF Company, a beer, wine, and spirits distribution company. He also owns a number of his own brands, including his Graffiti® brand of wine. And if you’re thinking that the little R in a circle may become important, well, Watson, I think we’d make a great team. (That’s a Sherlock Holmes reference; I can use that now, right?). Moses even found California graffiti artist to create labels for his wine, like the one below:

After Moses used (and registered) his GRAFFITI mark, the Blue Moon brand released a specialty edition line called the “Graffiti Collection.” According, to Blue Moon, the line’s premise rests on the fact that:

We never know what will come out of the creative minds of our brewmasters. These bigger, bolder ales are inspired by the unpredictable stories of our brewers.

Yes, crazy, creative, unpredictable names like “Pine in the Neck,” “Tounge-Thai-ed,” “Chimp,” and “Grape Scott.” Those zany stories have to be true. No way the marketing department was simply charged with the task of “finding ‘funny’ puns, like those craft brews are doing.”

But back to the lead. Blue Moon filed a trademark application for the mark GRAFFITI COLLECTION. Moses filed a Letter of Protest, which stated that Moses believe there would be a likelihood of confusion between his earlier trademark GRAFFITI in connection with “wine” and Blue Moon’s use of “GRAFFITI COLLECTION with “beer.” The Trademark Office granted the letter, and the Examining Attorney issued a refusal to register Blue Moon’s applied-for mark. Blue Moon chose to abandon the application, but continues to use the mark to promote its beer. Moses doesn’t like that and, according to one local news source, is considering taking legal action.

It’s an interesting article, as the news reporter also spoke with a communications manager for MillerCoors, who informed the reporter that “[a]ny time a name is under consideration, we decide if we need a trademark or not. In this case, we saw no grounds for confusion. Beer and wine are totally separate categories.” Of course, if the company had “chosen” that didn’t need a trademark registration, they they wouldn’t have filed at all. What he really means is that the company decided it is comfortable with taking the risk that the other factors (use of the Blue Moon brand, differences between the goods, and other factors) are all sufficient to avoid a likelihood of confusion in the real word (or that they don’t believe Moses will enforce his rights).

Moses appears to be fighting a bigger fight though. One of his primary problems appears to be Blue Moon’s (and really, all of the big beer companies’) attempts to co-opt the craft beer ethos:

They’re not a craft beer. They don’t own the name they’re using on the label. And it’s an insult to graffiti artists that they’re using graffiti and street art to represent a mass-produced beer product.

I’ll admit that Blue Moon does a better job than the beers that include the namesakes of the big breweries. It didn’t take long for Budweiser American Ale to get the axe. I would imagine that Miller Fortune isn’t far behind. Craft brew continues to grow, notwithstanding that there are new breweries opening every month. As Bloomberg reported in January:

Sales of craft beers grew 16 percent in volume over the past year versus a 1.7 percent decline for the biggest U.S. beer brands, according to researcher Symphony IRI Group. Sales of Bud Light were off by 1.3 percent and Miller Lite slid 4.4 percent.

There are a number of explanations, with taste likely at the top of the list, and “localization” not far behind. But that doesn’t explain why Big Beer has failed to capitalize on the growing trend of craft beers.  If I can borrow one of our guest blogger’s branding hats for a moment, though, I think I have a good explanation: crudely put, people have natural bull**** detectors. In some ways, it’s the basis of the entire jury system. When consumers see the “Budweiser Craft Beer,” they see Budweiser, they don’t see Craft Beer. That’s why you’ll never see the Coors name displayed prominently on a Blue Moon bottle, (or the other “craft” beers owned by Big Beer). No matter how hard they try, Goliaths can’t fool anybody by trying to squeeze into David’s clothing. Let’s wait and see if Moses can be successful in donning the clothes and role of Goliath against Blue Moon…

Pannapictagraphists take note, the verbing of brands is alive and kicking at the Phoenix Comicon!

After letting some friends know one of my sons and I were on our way to the Phoenix Comicon over the Memorial Day weekend (because Stan Lee was going to be there for a special signing event), we were told that in addition to his numerous cameo appearances in motion pictures, Stan Lee also is a really big deal on CBS’ The Big Bang Theory television series. Some funny excerpts on YouTube here, here, and here.

Stan Lee is clearly a powerful personal brand guaranteed to enhance the value of any comic book having his signature on it, assuming you can really establish it was "StanLee’d." But, if you’re like Penny and need more information on this cultural icon, see Stan Lee’s Wikipedia page, his POW! Entertainment website, this fan site, or any of the many social media tools he has embraced, i.e., his Twitter, Facebook, and MySpace pages.

What we learned pretty quickly is that a pannapictagraphist really needs to be on his or her toes to keep all the trademark acronyms straight in the world of comic book collecting. Tough for us newbies. CPG, ComicsPriceGuide.com, is an excellent online comic book collecting resource and community, where you can actually follow and measure the value of your collection over time. Not to be confused with CGC, the premier third-party comic book certification, grading, and encapsulation service. Not to mention, GCD, the Grand Comic Database, CBC, ComicBookCollecting.net, or CBG, Comics Buyer’s Guide. GCG’s main competitor appears to have broken the mold on three letter acronyms beginning with the letter C, instead opting for the somewhat more distinctive PGX, short for the otherwise highly descriptive name Professional Grading eXperts.

We heard many times during the convention discussions about whether to get your signed comic CGC’d (meaning certified, graded, and encapsulated by CGC), which of course, triggered for me, thoughts about the growing trend toward the verbing of brands and trademarks. After visiting the CGC website, it is clear to me that CGC is encouraging the use of its brand name as a verb with the tagline "Get CGC’d!" I’m not sure, however, whether the verbing was initiated by the brand owner Comics Guaranty, or whether it was embraced after the fact of public verbing. Either way, it seems like the verbing is single source driven and understood. For example, no one seems to talk about getting "CGC’d" with PGX. In addition, no one seems to be talking about getting PGX’d either.

What struck me the most about briefly meeting and observing Stan Lee is how much he seems to love life and his interactions with people. His personal brand appears well-deserved and to be one that is only growing in strength and power at his youthful age of 87.

He certainly made our day, when presenting these three comics for Stan Lee’s signature, he remarked: "These are some of my favorite books, I really like your taste":

   

We can’t take all the credit, we had some helpful advice and counsel on what to bring, from Marco and Eric at Pop Culture Paradise in Tempe, Arizona. Thanks guys.

Have you had any comics Stan Lee’d or CGC’d?