Archive for the ‘Trademark’ Category

Kleenex Fights Being Generic

By Aaron Hall

Occasionally we encounter start-up technology clients who tell us they want their name to be so popular it gets turned into a verb. Like, Google or Xerox. Oh ho ho, no you don’t! These big-name companies spend a lot of money fighting the genericization of their famous brand names. They all want to protect themselves from their brand name becoming so generic that they lose their trademark rights.

Case in point. Kleenex recently took out this full page ad in Brandweek; surely not pocket change. (Keep reading after the image for more of the blog post.)

If you can’t quite read the text, it says:

You don’t need a Social Security number to get your identity stolen. When you spend nearly a century building a name that people know and trust, the last thing you want is people calling any old tissue a Kleenex® Tissue. Simply put, ‘Kleenex’ is a brand name and should always be followed by an ® and the word ‘Tissue.’ Please help us keep our identity, ours.

The upside of having your name used as the generic term, or as a “verb” is that you own top-of-mind presence with the consumer. The downside is that when your name becomes synonymous with the category name, any one of your competitors (or all of them!) can use it to describe their own similar product.
(more…)

Going, Going Green

By Maria Cypher

Green ShamrockIn honor of Saint Patrick’s Day, Catchword’s naming leprechauns have been busy compiling statistics on Green names and implications for marketers.

It seems everyone’s jumping on the green brandwagon. Trademark filings incorporating “green” jumped 143% between 2006 and 2007, versus under 5% for “red” and “blue.” Clorox’s recent introduction of Green Works, a line of biodegradable household cleaners, exemplifies the trend.

“Eco” and “earth” names also showed huge gains (almost doubling), while more general terms like “nature,” “natural,” and “pure” grew less than 20%.

What does all this mean for marketers, going forward? Are “green” names still golden? Or are there greener pastures? Here’s our take on green naming:

(more…)

ANS schedule

By Laurel Sutton

As I so modestly pointed out in the newsletter, I am presenting a paper at the meeting of the American Names Society in January (held in conjunction with the formidable Linguistic Society of America). The schedule of events is up and you can see it here. The first day’s events (Jan 6) include the following:

Queer Names of Stage, Screen, and Fiction
Chair: Ronald R. Butters (Duke U)
Ronald R. Butters (Duke U) - Fay Etrange of Kuntzville: Names in queer novels before Stonewall
Phillip Carter (NC SU) - The social meaning of drag queen names
Rebecca Childs (U GA) - Drag kings: Creating a name in a more socially conscious performance space
Arnold Zwicky (Stanford U) - How to name a porn star

(My paper is on Saturday morning. It’s titled “Cheddar is from Cheddar, except when it is not: Renaming geographical indicators”.)

A splendid time is guaranteed for all.

Low Carb TM

By Laurel Sutton

“The phrase low carb is hot. The word Internet is not.

That’s what the latest trends in trademark applications show.

Spurred by the growing popularity of low-carbohydrate diets, the number of trademark filings that contain a version of the word carb skyrocketed more than tenfold in the first quarter, according to a report that has tracked such filings since 1992.

Internet-related filings, meanwhile, languished near six-year lows, the report found.” Trademarks coming up low-carb; Satisfying rise in number of trademark filings a healthy sign for U.S. economy, by John Shinal, SF Chronicle, May 1, 2004

This should not be a surprise to anyone. What I’d really be interested in seeing is the number of filings that are actually used, and the corresponding number that are abandoned (that is, they were registered with an intent to use them as brand names, but the products were never launched, or the company went out of business, or something).

The fall in applications for Internet-related names (defined here as using the words “global computer network” or “Internet” in their goods and services descriptions) is, I think, recognition that businesses are becoming more specialized w/r/t the Internet. I’d bet that the number of marks including the words “networking” or “wireless communication” have risen. That’s what we’re seeing on the client side, anyway.

Qantas/Jetstar

By Laurel Sutton

“April 20, 2004
On Dec 1, 2003 Qantas Airways Ltd announced the launch of their new low cost carrier named “Jetstar.” Unfortunately for Qantas, the name JetStar used in conjunction with the airline industry was an already legally trademarked brand by JetStar International Airlines.

Beginning at least four years ago, JetStar International Airlines, was the first and only company ever to use the trademark “JetStar” in conjunction with an airline or air carrier of any kind, and have enjoyed a peaceful and productive time with their superior trademark and domain. Quoting JetStar’s CEO Gene Bordelon, “When I formed this virtual airline four years ago, I went to great lengths naming and branding it so uniquely that the odds would be remote in the extreme that it would ever be exactly copied, unintentionally or coincidentally to avoid any copyright problems.” He continued by stating “It’s unbelievable that Qantas could come up with the same name, essentially the same logo design, and substantially the same silver livery as ours by chance. Even our domain name clearly states who and what we are. I knew when I named the airline ‘JetStar’ it along with our signature livery would be a very powerful and recognizable trademark brand. Qantas and their ad agency obviously also recognized this. ” From a press release at JetStar Airlines

Whoops. We were wondering how this could happen in today’s litigious world. Did Qantas not bother to check the US trademark database? Worse, did they know about it and ignore it? Their legal counsel must be pretty scared right now. If JetStar International wins a case for trademark infringement, Qantas could be forced to change the name of their low-cost carrier.

The same thing happened to Ford recently, when they launched their Futura brand. Again: Whoops.