Yeah, we usually mean this Apple, when we spill digital ink, not today, instead the edible varieties:

Hat tip to Erik Pelton who tweeted about the federal registration of LUDACRISP for fresh apples.

We know something about non-ludicrous trademark protection for apples > First Kiss and Rave.

They are newly minted brands for the MN55 Apple, a cross between HoneyCrisp and MonArk.

As it turns out, Honeycrisp might have been a trademark, but for its inclusion in a plant patent.

If an apple a day keeps the doctor away, does that include juris doctors who are into trademarks?

Or, would it be ludicrous for Apple, you know the iPhone XS one, to name a device Honeycrisp?

If only Honeycrisp could be a University of Minnesota apple trademark; Apple still has a chance.

To grasp lessons learned from the Honeycrisp story, and fully digest the Best Buy brand refresh, join us in Minneapolis on Thursday, a few seats remain for our Creative Brand Protection II event:

Winthrop & Weinstine’s Trademark and Brand Protection practice group will host a few hours of trademark and brand protection education, food and drink, and networking!

For the educational portion of the evening, we’ll share valuable insights and guidance for those who love brands and want to learn creative strategies for maximizing their value.

Yours truly, will moderate a panel discussion joined by:

  • Karen Brennan, Senior Director, Intellectual Property, Best Buy
  • Anne Hall, Technology Strategy Manager-Life Sciences, University of Minnesota
  • Aaron Keller, Co-Author: The Physics of Brand; Co-Founder Capsule Design
  • Tim Sitzmann, Trademark and Brand Protection Attorney, Winthrop & Weinstine

The panel will share best practices and creative approaches to both launching new brands and refreshing a mature brand. The panel will develop a robust discussion using the University of Minnesota’s MN55 apple launch and Best Buy’s brand refresh to explore the following themes:

  • Transforming a commodity into a valuable brand
  • Strategies for selecting and owning names and marks
  • Carving a path for global trademark and brand protection
  • Legal considerations for refreshing a brand’s visual identity

Reserve your spot now, space is limited. We hope you will join this lively and informative event!

And, I’ll say it again, if only Honeycrisp was an apple trademark, or an Apple trademark . . . .

In the meantime, since Honeycrisp is generic for fresh edible apples, is this stylization distinctive?

Nope, the pedestrian style is not striking enough to be trademark ownable, contrast Miller’s Lite.

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.

MillerCoors is currently running this Lite Beer ad, promoting the limited edition original can, and taking credit for inventing the light beer category, way back in 1973.

It is a great reminder that despite Miller’s determined and long-protracted litigation over its attempt to own the word LITE as a trademark for beer, in the end, it was unsuccessful because the misspelled word LITE was found generic — along with the correctly-spelled word LIGHT — for a type or category of beer, namely, low calorie beer.

What MillerCoors does own — as a federally-registered trademark — is the visual representation of the word LITE in the unique script to the right (with the generic word LITE disclaimed):

With the phonetically identical words LITE and LIGHT generic for low calorie beer, and part of the public domain for anyone to use, it isn’t surprising that others have gotten into the market with their own federally-registered versions of the misspelled LITE category term for beer: Falstaff Lite, Lite My Fire, Mike’s Lite, Arctic Lite, Lite is Good, and Duff Lite.

So, if you can’t legally own the category term, maybe you can take credit for inventing it.

Marketing types, I ask you, how much is that credit worth to a brand?

Enough to make your main competitor spell the word correctly?

Trademark types, can you think of other similar examples?