Non-Verbal Communication

Snickers Cross-Section Trademark Notice

By Steve Baird® on October 11, 2010

Posted in Advertising, Branding, Famous Marks, Food, Marketing, Non-Traditional Trademarks, Sight, Trademarks

You may recall about a year ago I did a post entitled "Delicious Trademarks: Candy Bar Cross-Section Trademarks?" I was reminded of this a couple of weeks ago when I snapped this photo, capturing what I believe to be the same point of sale display that inspired my original post:

A couple of months ago I saw in a convenience store a large Snickers point-of-sale floor-display depicting a prominent and attention-getting cross-section of a Snickers candy bar. Given Mars’ apparent interest in owning and creating non-traditional trademark rights surrounding the Snickers brand (revisit Dan’s post from earlier this year), it made me wonder whether Mars might view (and want consumers to view) the cross-section of the famous Snickers candy bar as a trademark too. After all, trademarks are one form of intellectual property that can last forever, so long as they continue to be used in commerce. In case you’re wondering, I couldn’t find any indication that Mars has sought to register any candy bar cross-sections as trademarks.

Now, keeping in mind, to be a non-traditional trademark, the symbol or device must (a) identify the goods, (b) distinguish the goods from those of others, and (c) indicate the source of the goods, there appears to be (at least) some potential for treating candy bar cross-sections as trademarks, provided the cross-sections actually are used as trademarks in commerce. In other words, it’s not enough that the bars could be sliced to view their otherwise purely internal cross-sections; depictions of the cross-sections would have to appear on packaging or at least point-of-sale materials (advertising alone won’t cut it).

So, to satisfy a court’s hunger for the "use in commerce" requirement, and if depicting the candy bar cross-section on packaging leads to a creative buzz-kill, then a prominent cross-section on point-of-sale displays should suffice. Having said that, given the non-traditional nature of a cross-sectional trademark, perhaps some "look-for" advertising might be just what the candy man ordered to help create the cross-section as a delicious new non-traditional trademark. The Candyblog certainly enjoys showing cross-sections of candy bars in discussing the pros and cons of the various goodies they review.

In case you’re wondering, I still see no sign that Mars is seeking federal trademark registration of any candy bar cross-section, but just days ago, in a different convenience store, I snapped yet another image of a more recent Snickers point of sale display, this one co-branding with the NFL’s Super Bowl XLV, to be played February 6, 2011, in Cowboys Stadium, located in Arlington, Texas.

Still no trademark application (at least, yet), but this more recent point of sale display actually shows a TM notice positioned next to the cross-section image, indicating Mars does, in fact, view the cross-section as a trademark, see the image below the jump, if you don’t believe me.…

Continue Reading Snickers Cross-Section Trademark Notice

Emoticons as Trademarks

By Steve Baird® on April 5, 2010

Posted in Branding, Marketing, Non-Traditional Trademarks, Trademarks

Last week, I blogged about a federally-registered emoticon trademark, one that I discovered at 30,000 feet, here. Emoticons as trademarks? Does the idea make you want to roll your eyes like Saturday Night Live’s Kristen Wiig as Aunt Linda? Brace yourself, they appear inclined to stay, for at least a while!

Two weeks ago I couldn’t have told you…

What the *-)- Blogging From 30,000 Feet

By Steve Baird® on March 28, 2010

Posted in Branding, Marketing, Trademarks

Some things you should do, just because you can. For example, when I was sixteen, I jumped out of a plane at 3,000 feet, with a parachute tethered to the plane, of course, landing near a chicken farm, surrounded by barbed wire, somewhere in rural North Carolina. That was an experience I’ll never forget, but I haven’t repeated it, at least…

Color Trademarks, Red Knobs, and Secondary Meaning

By Steve Baird® on February 22, 2010

Posted in Branding, Goodwill, Infringement, Law Suits, Look-For Ads, Marketing, Non-Traditional Trademarks, Sight, Trademarks

More on single color trademarks today. Eighteen months ago, Wolf Appliance obtained a federal trademark registration in connection with "a red knob or knobs" of "domestic gas and electric cooking appliances, namely, ranges, dual-fuel ranges, cooktops, and barbeque grills."

Wolf put its registration to the test a couple of weeks ago in a federal…

Branding Exclamations!

By Steve Baird® on November 29, 2009

Posted in Advertising, Branding, Food, International, Marketing, Non-Traditional Trademarks, Trademarks

Can you name the owner of this exclamation mark branding signal?

You may be surprised to learn it is federally-registered in the U.S. as a stand-alone non-verbal trademark.

You may be even more surprised to learn, it was federally-registered without a showing of secondary meaning or acquired distinctiveness, because it was viewed as an inherently distinctive non-verbal trademark.

This is no ordinary exclamation mark, however, the trademark owner claims it in a 3D appearance, does that help?

Here’s another clue: In Latin American countries, the brand name associated with this particular punctuation mark is Pepitos!

Last clue: Would it help to know the goods associated with this registered trademark are chocolate chip cookies?

Answer below the jump.…

Continue Reading Branding Exclamations!

An Increasingly Intense Ellipsis? dot, doT, dOT, DOT!

By Steve Baird® on November 9, 2009

Posted in Advertising, Branding, Look-For Ads, Marketing, Non-Traditional Trademarks, Sight, Trademarks

As you may recall, last month, we had some fun trying to solve the mystery of a non-traditional and non-verbal trademark owned by Amazon.com, here.

This time the non-traditional and non-verbal mystery mark shown above is described in trademark filings as consisting of "four circles that increase in size from left to right." I call it an "increasingly intense ellipsis." What would you call it, if you had to give it a name?

More importantly, have you seen it before? Do you recognize it? Are you surprised to know it is registered and protected as a trademark? Do you know what goods and services are associated with it? Do you know who owns it?

OK, need more information?

You don’t need the products bearing this "increasingly intense ellipsis" mark or the services associated with it to shop online at Amazon.com or any other online retailer. Did that help?

No? Here’s another hint: It is used in close association with this service mark: Tap & Go.

Still not enough? Alright, enough suspense?

The visual answer and more discussion is below the jump.…

Continue Reading An Increasingly Intense Ellipsis? dot, doT, dOT, DOT!

Pros and Cons of Stand-Alone Non-Verbal Logos and Other Trademark Styles: A Legal Perspective

By Steve Baird® on August 20, 2009

Posted in Advertising, Branding, Infringement, Marketing, Trademarks

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?…

Continue Reading Pros and Cons of Stand-Alone Non-Verbal Logos and Other Trademark Styles: A Legal Perspective

Without Words, But Not Speechless: More On Non-Verbal Logos That Can Stand Alone

By Steve Baird® on August 17, 2009

Posted in Advertising, Branding, Famous Marks, Food, Marketing, Trademarks

My family vacation and road trip through the heartland this past week has yielded a few photos for discussion. For example, here is a captured pair of non-verbal logos that can stand alone, without the need for any words.

As you may recall, one of my previous blog posts (April 9, 2009) discussed non-verbal logos…

“Chief Wahoo” Re-Branding Underway? A Painful Lesson on Saving Face

By Steve Baird® on May 28, 2009

Posted in Advertising, Branding, First Amendment, Marketing, Trademarks

Mark Image

A picture can say a thousand words; so does a face. The same is probably true of non-verbal logos, including the several federally-registered “Chief Wahoo” logos, shown above (all apparently still in use by the “Cleveland Indians” professional baseball team, according to their latest trademark filings).

So, what do they say to you?

My take? I can think of quite a few words to describe them, but none includes the word “honor,” as is often the claim made by those in favor of keeping Native American mascots.

From my perspective, “Chief Wahoo” is the non-verbal equivalent of the Redskins racial slur that I blogged about last week.

Last month I blogged about Non-Verbal Logos That Can Stand Alone, and while “Wahoo” certainly can “stand alone” as a non-verbal logo, unlike the famous Nike Swoosh and McDonalds Golden Arches, “Wahoo” should simply “stand alone” in the corner of a dark closet with the door shut and locked.…

Continue Reading “Chief Wahoo” Re-Branding Underway? A Painful Lesson on Saving Face

Non-Verbal Logos That Can Stand Alone, And One That Can’t

By Steve Baird® on April 9, 2009

Posted in Branding, Famous Marks, Marketing, Sight, Trademarks

Even young children understand the power of brands and trademark symbols before they can read.

Years ago, when my children were at the ripe young age of wondering (and maybe caring) what my job was, I’d try to explain the kinds of things a trademark attorney might do. Of course, I didn’t tell them some view trademark types as “the most basic figure.”

It took a while to find a message that stuck with them. What finally got through was when I posed a hypothetical question, asking whether they liked eating at the Golden Arches, and what they would think if they couldn’t get a Happy Meal there because it wasn’t McDonalds after all, but some other restaurant using the Golden Arches too. They were outraged this could ever happen.

So, the Golden Arches can probably stand alone.

Here is another non-verbal logo that can truly stand alone:

Yes, it functions as an exceedingly strong and probably famous brand and trademark with no further explanation or word mark to support it (and to not undermine my point, I’ll refrain from uttering the four letter brand name firmly linked to it in our minds).

What do you think about this one?

(As you may recall, Dan previously posted on a different topic related to this logo here).

I’d respectfully suggest that when the hang-tag attached to the luggage item bearing this logo is closely supported by a lot of words like SWISSGEAR, WENGER, and FROM THE MAKER OF THE GENUINE SWISS ARMY KNIFE, the logo is having a tough time standing alone and probably needs a trademark support group.

By the way, anyone notice the resemblance to the flag of Switzerland?

How about the International or American Red Cross?

Last thought, for now, concerning non-verbal logos, really:…

Continue Reading Non-Verbal Logos That Can Stand Alone, And One That Can’t

Menu