First things first: Happy 4th of July, Dear Readers!
That was a pretty honest, simple, genuine, transparent, straightforward, to the point, not belaboring at all, under any circumstances, my most sincere wishes to our dear readers, agree?
Now contrast the original well wishes with the elaborate description of them, the latter being anything but short
Remember how important it is to stay on the right side of the suggestive/descriptive line when it comes to making proper use of a brand name?
We have cautioned about the danger of “taking a suggestive name, mark, or tag-line, and using it descriptively in a sentence on labels, packaging, ad copy, or the Internet,”
Welcome to another edition of AlphaWatch. In addition to the prominent use of capital letter G on the front of these energy drink cans, the last line on them reads:
"IT’S GAZZU!! HEY, GIMME A G."
I thought that Gatorade’s "What is G?" question already had been answered here?
–Dan Kelly, Attorney
It has been some time since we have visited AlphaWatch, and today we turn our attention to an ad I spied on ESPN’s website this week:
This takes me back to law school and a Latin phrase common in legal parlance, res ipsa loquitur, which is commonly translated, “the thing
The New Year will be ringing in a brand new trademark truncation, ironically caused by a recent expansion.
Just so you know, it’s not a new type of Gatorade (G01, G2, and G03), excuse me, G.
So, what can this latest trademark truncation represent?
Apparently, the truncating trademark owner has not yet secured the most obvious domain, www.b1g.com, because it’s for sale, by someone apparently located in Russia.
Answer below the jump.Continue Reading Trademark Truncation Alert: B1G
In this edition of AlphaWatch, it appears another major brand owner is flirting with truncation and wants to be g too (of course, not to be confused with G2 or even G for that matter), despite the fact that the products associated with each brand might be considered complementary (assuming you’re looking to break a sweat):
.gif)
.gif)
.gif)
.gif)
So, guess who appears to be working on developing their own family or series of lil’ g marks (of course, not to be confused with another’s G Series)? Visual answer below the jump:Continue Reading GeeWhiz: Another Edition of Trademark AlphaWatch
I’m not talking about brands that say one thing and do another. I’m not talking about brands that don’t live up to their promise. I’m literally talking about brands with two faces. One face may be confident, complicated, technical, professional, and/or formal. Let’s call him, Stephen. The other face might be friendly, simple, approachable, engaging, and/or informal
Last week we blogged about the dreaded D-Word and how some marketers unwittingly undermine trademark rights in a brand name by explaining that the name "describes" or is "descriptive" of the goods or services sold under the brand.
We also have blogged about the danger of "taking a suggestive name, mark, or tag-line, and using it descriptively in
The impact of the Tiger Woods scandal in branding can be viewed from two different perspectives. The first perspective comes from the point of view of the companies that paid Woods to endorse their products. The second perspective is how the personal brand of Tiger Woods will be impacted as the smoke clears from this series of events.
Two professors in University of California-Davis’ Economics Department attempted to measure the impact from the first perspective. They claimed that shareholders in publicly traded companies that Woods endorsed lost $5-12 billion in the weeks that followed the car accident in Florida that set off the scandal. They undoubtedly have an interesting perspective, but there are limiting factors in their research. However, an undisputable fact of the Tiger Woods scandal is that it put a lot of brand management teams in a very delicate situation. Brand managers at firms where Woods served as an endorser had to consider how their brands would be perceived by their target consumers if they were to continue the relationship. It is not an enviable position.
When a brand chooses to link arms with a celebrity endorser, it must consider which celebrities will be effective endorsers. It is essential to select celebrities that will positively contribute to revenue growth and profitability. I believe that a celebrity endorser is most effective when the target consumer perceives them as attractive or desirable in some fashion and the product is related to the expertise of the celebrity. For example, Michael Jordan was an effective endorser of both Nike and Gatorade because of his status as an elite athlete and the fact that both brands are related to athletic performance. Gisele Bundchen is an effective endorser for Dolce & Gabbana fragrances because scent is an important aspect of appearance and she is the embodiment of phenomenal appearance. She would be far less effective as a celebrity endorser for the Toyota Camry. With regards to Tiger Woods, he is most effective in endorsing Nike Golf products and any other golf related brands. His effect is diminished for brands like Gillette and AT&T.Continue Reading The Roar of Tiger Woods in Branding
I have heard that lightning only strikes once in the same place, but apparently that is only a myth. Indeed, the number of lightning bolt logos that have "hit" the mail room, over the years, at the U.S. Trademark Office appear to provide additional evidence for disproving the popular myth.
So, what does that say, if anything, about the scope of rights associated with the non-verbal lightning bolt logos shown below, none of which are owned by the same entity, and all of which have been registered or at least approved for publication by the U.S. Trademark Office? And, how many of them do you recognize anyway?
In addition to the link for each logo that connects to the relevant trademark information at the USPTO, here is a numbered hint for each, and the answer key is below the jump:
a. 
b. 
c. 
d.
e.
f. 
g. 
h.
i.
j.
k.
l. 
Continue Reading Lightning Strikes How Many Times?
