New stuff that spreads really fast never ceases to amaze me. Remember the viral music video from Norway earlier this year? The What Does the Fox Say video amassed another 200 million views since my post from six weeks ago!
The well-known, if not famous, Harley-Davidson logo is on the left below, but what is on the right?
Might Harley-Davidson also be in the business of renting storage garage units for motorcycles among other outdoor toys? I doubt it.
It looks like Harley-Davidson is involved in the rental of motorcycles, but that’s all…
Which brand do you believe is better equipped to enjoy the benefits of using a non-verbal logo?
In other words, which brand can more easily shed the words from the visual identity, in the hopes of joining the ranks of these likely famous non-verbal logos and brand signals?
My answer below the jump.
So, as we’ve said before, pictures can say a thousand words, but which logo doesn’t belong here:
My answer below the jump.
Basically, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) of…
Yesterday, we asked about when it might make sense to go brand-less, and whether doing so can be an effective marketing strategy long term.
Today, I’m wondering, what and where would McDonalds be without the Golden Arches? Nike without the Swoosh? Shell Oil without the, well, Shell?
Laura Savard and Mark Gallagher of BlackCoffee stirred up an interesting…
What do you think, is Overstock.com selling bling with the Fordless blue oval logo?
The pending Fordless blue oval intent-to-use trademark application recently was examined by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), and on October 23, 2009, the PTO found no substantive bases for refusal, but instead it issued an initial refusal noting only a couple of purely procedural or technical deficiencies, concerning the wording in the lengthy description of goods and the need for Ford to submit a claim of ownership to some related registrations (here, here, and here).
As you’ll see, I’m no equestrian (nor equine expert for that matter), but given the non-verbal logos shown above, are you able to tell what company operates a fleet of these semi tractor-trailers?
Does the color of the horse help? Horse breed? The direction it is facing? How about its pose?
Some possible considerations and the answer below the jump.
What does this image signify to you?
As promised earlier this week, in my post entitled “Without Words, But Not Speechless: More On Non-Verbal Logos That Can Stand Alone,” here is my effort to identify, from a legal perspective, some of the pros and cons of non-verbal logos and other trademark styles.
But, before addressing the legal implications, it is worth noting that a number of our insightful readers and commenters already have helped articulate a variety of pros and cons from a business and marketing perspective, here. By my count, there appears to be consensus on at least two important points: (1) Having an iconic stand-alone non-verbal logo or wordless trademark symbol is highly desirable, especially for truly international brands; but (2) be prepared to spend a lot of time, effort, and significant resources to achieve one.
In addition, at least one designer has written that having a logo without words “can be a big branding pain,” for a variety of reasons. She identifies three basic logo styles: (1) Text logos; (2) symbol logos; and (3) combination logos. Examples of text logos would be the Coca-Cola script, the Yahoo! stylized word, and the Google stylized word, all three illustrated in my earlier post. The highly stylized Ebay logo is another good example of a text logo. On the other hand, the Shell logo, McDonald’s Golden Arches, and the Nike Swoosh, are all good examples of symbol logos. In addition, here is a message board collecting a number of other possible candidates for symbol logos that are capable of standing lone — without words — yet, they still have a lot to say to consumers. Many of them, in fact, were mentioned by commenters to my prior post.
Anyway, the designer referenced above contends that for a variety of reasons, combination logos often make the most sense. According to her, a combination logo “combines both a symbol and the company name. The symbol and text can be integrated together, side by side, or with one located above the other.”
Generally, from a trademark owner and legal perspective, I prefer the combination logo too, but not the “integrated” type, instead the “side by side” type or the “one above the other” type. The Mercedes-Benz combination logo shown below nicely illustrates the “one above the other” type of combination logo:
Why do I generally prefer this type of trademark logo format and style?