We’ve been down this road before, some themes intersect, and trademark value is filtered out:

The intersecting themes on tap for the day are: Zero, Branding, Trademarks, and Loss of Rights.

ZEROWATER is a perfectly suggestive, inherently distinctive, and federally-registered trademark with “incontestable” status as a source-identifier for “water filtering units for household use.”

Judging from the specimens in the file history at the USPTO, the brand owner appears to have done a nice job leaving consumers to imagine the connection between the mark and the goods.

Branding ZEROWATER with taglines like “For water that’s only water,” “Get more out of your water,”  “If it isn’t zero, zero, zero, it isn’t just water” “If it’s not 000, it’s not ZeroWater,” and “If it’s not all zeros, it’s not ZeroWater,” all help to block Zero from pure and mere descriptiveness:

On the other hand, as the top image of the retail endcap shows (click the image to enlarge), the current packaging and product description adds blunt force to the now obvious meaning of ZERO:

“LEAVES ZERO DISSOLVED SOLIDS BEHIND”

Had this purely descriptive use of ZERO been present at filing, then ZEROWATER easily could have been refused as merely descriptive — why add it now? Especially with this far better existing copy:

“REMOVES VIRTUALLY ALL DISSOLVED SOLIDS”

While ZEROWATER can no longer be challenged as merely descriptive for “water filtering units for household use,” what about future applications having slightly different descriptions of goods?

Given all that Coca-Cola has done to turn ZERO generic in the soft drink category (meaning ZERO Sugars and/or Calories), shouldn’t ZEROWATER remove virtually all opportunities for genericness?

When a brand owner migrates toward descriptiveness with its copy, leaving the consumer with zero need to exercise any imagination as to meaning, there just might be “nothing” left to protect.

Taking our discussion about Coke Zero a little further than Monday’s discussion, is it any wonder that “zero” stands for nothing, none, nada, when it comes to calories, given icons like this one:

In other words, it doesn’t and it can’t hold trademark significance for calorie-free, no-calorie, or zero-calorie food products and beverages, and spelling out “0” as ZERO can’t alter the equation:

So, in this context, it is pretty clear from the Nutritional Facts, that ZERO means, not only zero or no sugar, but also, zero or no calories, actually meaning zero and no trademark significance, right?

We’ve been writing about the COKE ZERO trademark for nearly a decade now, noting in 2014:

“[I]t will be worth watching to see whether the [TTAB] finds that ‘ZERO’ primarily means Coke or just a soft drink having ‘no calories, you know, a drink about nothing . . . .’”

Turns out, in May 2016, Coke obtained a favorable decision from the TTAB, ruling that ZERO is not generic for a soft drink category, instead it is descriptive and Coke has secondary meaning in it.

With that victory in hand, we then questioned Coke’s thinking in launching obvious generic use of ZERO, welcoming Coke Zero to the Genericide Watch, given this categorical and non-brand use:

Then, two months ago, the CAFC decided — on appeal — that the TTAB got it wrong, ruling it:

“[F]ailed to consider whether consumers would consider the term ZERO to be generic for a subcategory of the claimed genus of beverages – i.e., the subcategory of the claimed beverages encompassing the specialty beverage categories of drinks with few or no calories or few or no carbohydrates.”

We’re now back to the question we asked in 2014: “[I]s ZERO like LIGHT for beer, STONE OVEN for pizza — basically denoting the name of a product category instead of a source identifier?”

As to the next steps, the CAFC sent the case back to the TTAB, instructing it to “examine whether the term ZERO, when appended to a beverage mark, refers to a key aspect of the genus.”

TM types, is Professor McCarthy right that the CAFC ruling makes it too easy to find genericness?

I’m left wondering, given the floodgates that have opened up to other beverage brands also using ZERO as a generic category term for “no calories” or “no sugar” — is fighting for ZERO worth it?

 

 


 

 


Will Coke continue to fight for ZERO as a trademark? Or, should it make better soda instead?

How can The Coca-Cola Company even keep the trademark pursuit of ZERO going, when it already appears to have made the choice of making a better soda through its independent unit, Honest?


On the heels of discussing trademark genericide through the Anything is Popsicle prism yesterday, let us turn our attention back to Velcro, who is at it again, this time making a genericide sequel.

The sequel is called “Thank You for Your Feedback — Don’t Say Velcro.” Like any sequel I’ve ever seen, I’m not feeling Velcro’s second attempt either, so Napolean Dynamite, please, don’t do it.

What the Velcro sequel does offer are many crowd-sourced generic alternatives to Velcro’s “hook and loop” preference. No thanks, Velcro says it’s sticking with its chosen noun and generic term.

The thing is, Velcro doesn’t get to decide this one. What I’d really like to see from Velcro next time, is whether the videos moved the needle on whether Velcro has at least 51% brand meaning.

Welcome to another edition of Genericide Watch, where we consider brands on the edge, working hard to maintain brand status and exclusive rights, while trying to avoid trademark genericide.

The primary meaning to the relevant public decides genericness, so trademark owners will try to influence how consumers understand the word, to maintain at least 51% brand meaning.

As we’ve written before, one of the ways to spot a brand on the edge is to find the word “brand” on product packaging, usually with the claimed owner’s preferred generic name for the goods.

That is one way of telling or reminding consumers it’s a brand name, but saying so, doesn’t necessarily make it so, especially when the “preferred” name is a mouthful or unnatural.

Popsicle is one of those on a mission to prevent its trademark rights from melting away. Having said that, even if Popsicle dips below 50% brand meaning, the visual identity is still ownable:

The word was coined almost a century ago, so Unilever is asking the folks to not use it as a noun, instead as an adjective modifying the noun: ice pop. So, will the folks follow the instructions?

By the way, love this vintage typeface for Popsicle, which used to be the subject of registration:

Ironically, it calls to mind a similar typeface, questioning whether Mission Popsicle, is eh, possible:

Anything is possible, but do uses of visual puns like this help (or hurt) to melt Popsicle as a brand?

It’s been a little while since the last example we’ve shared showing a brand turning its face, or a blind eye, on age-old rigid trademark advice, counseling against using a brand name as a verb.

Given the more common trend of many alcoholic beverage brands focusing attention and their messaging on drinking responsibly, MillerCoors has made a surprising choice with Hamm It Up!

While we’re all for encouraging brand owners to carefully explore the true risk of genericide from verbing their brand name, encouraging drinkers to be “ridiculous or over the top,” is over the top.

We get it, Hamm’s is going gangbusters as an economy beer brand, but there is a way to verb an alcohol brand more gracefully, so I’m left wondering when MillerCoors will, let’s say, Hang it Up?

UPDATE: In case you’re wondering, the microscopic text in the lower right corner of the billboard reads like a disclaimer: “ENJOY IN MODERATION.” How’s that for a messaging mixed drink?

 

The above advertising billboard is plastered all over the Twin Cities at the moment, and it got me thinking, so here I am, once again, writing about Coke Zero, remember this can?

Coke obtained a favorable decision from the TTAB early last year, ruling that ZERO is not generic for a soft drink category, instead it is descriptive and Coke has secondary meaning in it.

So, why on earth has Coke positioned SUGAR immediately next to the word ZERO beneath the Coca-Cola script in widespread billboard advertising and packaging?

Putting the key trademark issue aside, it doesn’t even look like there is a good business case for it?

Had the above billboard advertisement and depicted bottle been part of the TTAB case decided last year, instead of specimens like the above can, seems probable we’d have seen a different result.

Has Coke forgotten that like functionality for non-traditional trademarks, genericness can be raised as a validity challenge for word marks, at any time?

Coke Zero, welcome to the Genericide Watch.

Nearly everyone in the IP community is talking about the hilarious viral Velcro music video released last week. Hat tip to Patently-O, Martha, and Brett. The “behind the scenes” video is here.

We’ve spoken before about nervous trademark types, behind the scenes doing their level best, and taking steps to try to avoid unwanted genericide of the trademarks they are charged to protect:

“Nervous, I say, because these types of advertisements frequently are designed to help prevent unwanted genericide of a trademark. The idea generally is, let’s show and create a record that we are educating the public about our trademark rights and hopefully deterring misuses that otherwise might find their way into the public eye and influence the relevant public’s understanding of a term or symbol as being generic and part of the public domain, free for anyone to use, even competitors.”

Velcro has been on our Genericide Watch list, and Wikipedia notes it is a trademark frequently used as a generic term. So, hats off to Velcro for letting their attorneys’ hairs down on this one.

And congrats to Penn Holderness and the rest of the WalkWest creative team, for helping give the impression in the Velcro video that at least some nervous lawyers can still have a sense of humor.

Julie Barry, Director of Global Brand, Velcro Companies, explained the Velcro video in this way:

“We’re here in North Carolina, shooting our ‘We are the World’ video which is an educational video explaining to folks details about the Velcro brand trademark and why it’s important that people refer to the mechanical fastener as ‘hook and loop.'”

Actors posing as lawyers, flanked by real Velcro lawyers, appear agitated at times, imploring listeners to not say Velcro, but instead “hook and loop,” or “our trademark will get killed,” “we’ll lose our circle ®,” and “our trademark goes away.” At the same time, Velcro is fully admitting the “First World” melodramatic nature of this worst case scenario and unfortunate situation.

Maybe it’s just me, but I’ve never heard of a “hook and loop” fastener before now, so the video certainly accomplished that bit of education. I’d be surprised, however, if the video moves folks to embrace the stiff and clunky six syllable “hook and loop fastener” generic phrase, over Velcro.

Perhaps what follows is one small example of where I’ve captured “at least some of the sparks” spinning from my mind’s eye, so please bear with me, but as I watched and listened to the Velcro video more times than I’d like to admit (kind of an addictive musical hook), the rapid repetition of “hook and loop” triggered thoughts of “hook and ladder,” then “chutes and ladders,” and how ladders can lead up to rewards while chutes can take you for a ride straight to the bottom:

Given those stark alternatives, given how a brand that deteriorates to the point that its primary meaning is perceived to be more generic than it is perceived a brand (is not a brand at all, under the law), and given a trademark owner’s understandable desire to try and influence and build up the primary brand meaning among the relevant consuming public, it’s worth asking whether the humorous Velcro video helps to move that critical needle. In other words, does it act as a ladder?

We’ve cautioned before that a brand designed to launch an entirely new category must also spend valuable time and effort in creating and donating to the public, an acceptable generic term that the public easily can embrace, so when the applicable patents expire and exclusivity is lost, the trademark doesn’t travel straight down the chute to genericness:

Brand owners launching a new category of product or service do well to design a simple generic category name too.”

“Remember how it took Rollerblade an entire decade to come up with “in-line skates”?  Before that, the generic name it adopted at the USPTO was “boots equipped with longitudinally aligned rollers used for skating and skiing,” leading to a multitude of generic Rollerblading misuses.”

Is “hook and loop” going to get the job done? Will it help prevent a death by a thousand cuts?

“Hook and loop” is certainly more of a ladder, even a rescue “hook and ladder,” than the extreme generic identification of goods found in the first Velcro trademark application from 1957:

“NOTION-NAMELY, A SYNTHETIC MATERIAL SOLD IN RIBBON, SHEET, OR PIECE GOODS FORM, SAID MATERIAL HAVING COMPLEMENTAL PARTS WHICH ADHERE TO EACH OTHER WHEN PRESSED TOGETHER AND ADAPTED FOR USE AS A CLOSURE, FASTENER, OR BUTTON FOR CLOSING GARMENTS, CURTAINS, OR THE LIKE”

And, unlike Rollerblade who seriously delayed in donating a bite-size generic category term to the general public (“in-line skates”), Velcro seems to have been fully invested in “hook and loop” going all the way back to at least as early as 1975. Query whether the entry of the “hook and loop fastener” phrase closely tracks the lapsing of the patents (as the video mentions) “forty years ago.” If so, perhaps it still came twenty years too late?

Either way, I’m seriously wondering whether Velcro’s tongue-in-cheek reference to a “scratchy and hairy fastener” might be more easily and readily embraced by today’s general public as the generic alternative to genuine Velcro branded products.

I’m also left thinking that the video begs the question of who is the intended audience. In other words, who are the “folks” that Velcro would like to reach with this creative video?

I’ve always thought of Velcro as more of a B2B brand, but in researching this post, I see that I’ve missed some of their general consumer products, like general purpose straps, general purpose plastic bagschildren’s toy blocks, adhesive cementmedical splints, and hair rollers, for example.

Contractual efforts are probably the most effective way of controlling how the Velcro trademark is used by those who purchase authentic product from Velcro and incorporate Velcro fasteners into their own consumer products. And, when it comes to competitors who might be inclined to misuse the Velcro trademark, the cease and desist letter, and/or lawsuit is probably most effective.

So, perhaps the general public is the intended audience of this educational effort. If so, I’m not sure the effort anticipated how many in the general public don’t like to be told what to say and do.

Moreover, let’s face it, the video’s referenced “trademark laws being broken,” aren’t being broken by the general public speaking about the brand or a competitor’s alternatives to the brand. Nor are they being broken by the media who reports and writes about all kinds of things and happens to use “velcro” in lower case and in a generic sense.

I do seriously hope the video will strike the right chord with these important audiences, as they will have a significant impact on whether the brand is able to climb the ladder of distinctiveness and fame or slides down the chute to genericness.

For those still with me and wondering, while I’ve questioned the seriousness of the risk for genericide when intentional and controlled brand-verbing is involved (and the 9th Circuit’s recent decision affirming the survival of the Google trademark appears to validate the difficulty of bringing a trademark all the way to the ground zero), the Velcro mark seems different, as the generic uses don’t involve verbing, they go straight to nouning and naming what the product is, by the way, a far more efficient name for a “hook and loop” or “scratchy and hairy” fastener.

Which of the present options are most likely to roll off the tongues of those who matter?

Marketing types and legal types who review labels, be well advised to choose words used carefully.

In other words, if you believe you own rights in Pretzel Crisps as a trademark, it’s not wise to use the number of so-called “Crisps” as the serving size, especially with no trademark notice symbol.

Frito-Lay’s successful 2014 generic challenge (pretzel crisps = pretzel crackers), was appealed to the Federal Circuit by the claimed trademark owner Princeton Vanguard, now Snyder’s Lance.

We followed this case up to the Federal Circuit appeal, then watched on the sidelines for a while:

Our friend, John Welch, over at the TTABlog, did a nice job summarizing the Federal Circuit’s decision vacating the Board’s genericness decision, sending it back for another and closer look.

John also nicely summarized the Board’s second look too, once again ordering cancellation of the Supplemental Registration and sustaining the Principal Register opposition on genericness grounds.

I’d like to remind our faithful readers again about the danger of self-inflicted wounds that can kill a trademark, one example being generic use in the Serving Size portion of the Nutrition Facts labels:

Makes it hard to avoid admitting during the litigation “that ‘crisps’ can be used as a term” for “pretzel crackers,” and that “packages for its PRETZEL CRISPS products provide nutrition facts for a serving size of a stated number of ‘crisps.’” These admissions proved helpful to Frito-Lay.

Another danger, it appears, is the lower case lettering use by others in mentioning the “pretzel crisps” product, a multitude of references apparently unpoliced by the claimed mark owner:

“[W]e note that there are many instances in the record where the term ‘pretzel crisps’ is set forth in lower case, with no apparent reference to the term as a brand, or to Defendant, indicating an understanding by the relevant public that the term ‘pretzel crisps’ refers to a product rather than to a single producer thereof. We note that many of these excerpts, from business as well as industry publications, are the work of authors who indicate an understanding that a brand is referenced by use of uppercase letters. Yet they use lower case letters to spell ‘pretzel crisps’ . . .”

Does that focus validate trademark counsel’s desire to steer away from using lower case branding, given the Board’s focus on type style? Or, if carefully managed, might the ills still be avoided?

Stay tuned on Princeton Vanguard’s next move following this loss, will it appeal again? If so, as John rightly asks, which appeal route makes the most sense, Federal Circuit again, or federal district court this time?

What’s more, Princeton Vanguard has been busy at the U.S. Trademark Office, apparently planning for a worst case scenario if it were to lose all protection for the bare wording “pretzel crisps” for “pretzel crackers,” which is where things stand for the moment. It has filed two new standard character word marks for slightly different goods, instead of “pretzel crackers”: “Peanut butter-covered pretzel snacks,” and “Chocolate-covered pretzel snacks.” And, this script for bare-bones “pretzel crackers”:

What say you, are the different goods descriptions enough to avoid genericness, and is the above shown script unique enough to permit exclusive ownership of a generic set of words?

Or, is it a little too light in the creativity department to infuse exclusive ownership potential into generic wording?

These questions will decided at some point along the line, since Frito-Lay has opposed these applications too.

Well, it’s official, the 2017 Minnesota State Fair is almost in the books now, it came and went, without the longstanding Original Deep Fried Cheese Curds stand (notwithstanding a heroic #savethecurds campaign); it was instead replaced by Big Fat Bacon, shown above.

Love the prominent use of the TM on the signage, even if it isn’t backed by a federal trademark application, notwithstanding a multitude of other Big Fat players in the trademark world, including, but not limited to, Big Fat Lye for soap, Big Fat Pita for a restaurant, Big Fat Cookies for cookies, Big Fat Burritos for a restaurant, My Big Fat Greek for a restaurant, and Big Fat Sausage for sausage, all enjoying peacefully-coexisting federally-registered status.

I’m left wondering whether the Big Fat Bacon team might be apprehensive about seeking federal registration in light of the Big Fat Sausage registration, if so, let’s just say, where there’s a will there’s a way. Another suggestion, for the suggestion box, next year, how about a well-done crispy Big Fat Bacon option, needing no stick or other pork-belly support?

And, the business of recycling branded product containers remains alive and well at the Minnesota State Fair, apparently not time for night, night yet:

Finally, a pair of his and hers Google t-shirts — unlikely to both be worn, at least peacefully, in the same home at the same time:

We couldn’t find a third option, and passed. For the latest on the trademark challenge to the Google trademark, on genericness grounds, check out the report at Trademarkology.