The “Taco Tuesday” battle exploded on Twitter, blogs, NewsOK, Fox 25 News, and even Facebook. Taco John’s owns U.S. Trademark Registration No. 1,572,589 for the mark TACO TUESDAY (seen below). It appears that Taco John’s attorneys sent the Oklahoma City based Iguana Mexican Grill a letter notifying Iguana of Taco John’s alleged rights and registration. Taco John’s also ordered Iguana to cease and desist usage of the hashtag #tacotuesday.
What started as an attempt by Taco John’s to assert its trademark rights, resulted in some fantastic PR for Iguana Grill. For those of you that are not from Oklahoma, you should know that as Oklahomans, we stick together. Iguana Grill has generously invested time and money into the community through volunteerism and food donations. The Oklahoma City community is extremely loyal to Iguana and when everyone caught wind of Taco John’s requests, a frenzy of tweets ensued. The community rallied around Iguana by voicing their support for the usage of “Taco Tuesday” on Twitter and Facebook. Fans also showed their support by gathering at Iguana. Iguana sold a record number of tacos on Tuesday – approximately 2,000 tacos.
Tuesday’s tweets included things like:
@TacoJohns even tweeted:
“Taco John’s holds the copyright to Taco Tuesday giving us the exclusive right to use and protect it.”
(Emphasis Added.)
So which one is it? What exactly is Taco John’s trying to assert? A patent? A copyright? A trademark? It seems that even @TacoJohns needs some guidance as to the differences between copyrights and trademarks. Taco John’s claim is centered around its alleged trademark, not copyright, for the phrase “Taco Tuesday.”
Generally speaking, patents protect inventions, copyrights protect creative works of authorship like music, photos, videos, and literary works, and trademarks protect brands. Taco John’s is alleging that Taco Tuesday is their brand name, that they have trademark rights in it, and that Iguana cannot use it without their permission. Are there legal arguments that could be made in response to Taco John’s? Sure. Does it matter that several other companies use the phrase “Taco Tuesday?” Possibly. But that is another post for another day.
For more information on the difference between patents, trademarks, and copyrights check out this PHOSITA blog post posted earlier last year.
Posted by Emily E. Campbell, August 4, 2010 at 6:43 am Permalink: Taco John’s Claims Rights in Taco Tuesday 5 Comments
Such a sad story. An independent developer and mom of two was unhappy with the features of the free Facebook client and tried to make a positive difference by creating the “Facebook Ultimate” app. Unfortunately, the developer incorporated the term Facebook into the name of her app and even created a similar icon for the app. (Seen at right.) The app was recently shut down for supposed trademark infringement.
Unfortunately, this is an all too common problem for startups and small businesses that do not have a legal team glued to their hip warning them about improperly using the trademarks, patents, and copyrights of others. But, as my mom always said, there is a lesson in everything. We can learn from this legal blunder. Generally, it is a good idea to consult a legal professional who practices in the areas of patents, trademarks, and copyrights before releasing a new product into the marketplace. In fact, it’s even better to consult a legal professional long before you are even thinking about releasing the product to the marketplace. This way, you can avoid spending money to correct marketing materials, product packaging, etc.
Check out what some of the bigwigs, like Sony and Apple are doing to avoid trademark infringement in this article by Laurel Sutton of Catchword.
In the end, a sad story for Facebook Ultimate, but a lesson we can all benefit from. Please use caution when naming and branding your next big idea!
Posted by Emily E. Campbell, April 6, 2010 at 1:45 pm Permalink: Facebook Shuts Down “Facebook Ultimate” iPad App 6 Comments
Google takes the prize for one of the best April Fools’ Day pranks of 2010. If you haven’t heard, be sure to visit www.google.com before the days end. Also, check out The Official Google Blog for more information about their “new” company name, Topeka. The best part of the Google blog post is at the bottom. Google notes that branded products can achieve such popularity that they can sometimes become generic (much like aspirin, cellophane and trampoline). To be sure that Google’s new name is not subject to genericism, Google provides tips on how to use their new name.
Kudos to Google for a great April Fools’ Day prank!
Also thank you to Owen Smigelski (a fellow member of the International Trademark Association (INTA)) e-mail list, who pointed me to the Google blog post.
Posted by Emily E. Campbell, April 1, 2010 at 10:37 am Permalink: Google’s April Fools’ Day Switcheroo to Topeka Brand Name 1 Comment
Everyone at Dunlap Codding is extremely proud of Emily E. Campbell and Michelle M. Llanderosos for the incredible work they undertook in organizing and spearheading the steering committee for Oklahoma City’s first Ignite event – IgniteOKC (Twitter: @igniteokc).
Dunlap Codding was thrilled to be able to sponsor the event, support the efforts of Emily and Michelle and encourage the efforts of everyone on the steering committee, including:
Seth Spillman Dirk Keiser Michael To Blake Jackson Justin Briggs Tyler Smith Sandip Patel Jory Burson Melanie Goodman Keiser Robert Campbell
IgniteOKC #2 will be in the summer of 2010 and IgniteTulsa #2 (Twitter: @ignitetulsa) will be March 4, 2010 at the Blue Dome Diner in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The Tulsa folks were a great inspiration to IgniteOKC and we encourage everyone – no matter where they are located in Oklahoma – to travel to Tulsa for IgniteTulsa #2. You won’t be disappointed!
Emily, as Chair Woman of the event, was interviewed by NewsOK and gave a fantastic overview of the Ignite event:
Posted by Douglas Sorocco, January 19, 2010 at 11:41 pm Permalink: IgniteOKC Sparks Creativity and Rockin Good Time 2 Comments Brands that are weird – Avoiding the Waldo Paradox The Ignite phenomenon is bubbling up throughout the world and it is happening within the state of Oklahoma as well (yes, even Oklahoma!) Last week was the first Ignite Tulsa event and our own Emily Campbell dove into the fray with a talk entitled “How Not to be Waldo: Brands that Stand Out in a Crowd.” I may be a bit biased – but she rocked it! Emily’s mantra of “Be Weird, Be Different and Think Outside the Box” is a great way of thinking about your branding efforts and the need to stand out in a crowd. It is a bit unusual for an attorney to be thinking about branding – Emily may have some additional thoughts on that topic – but, when you think about it – it makes perfect sense. Trademark attorneys see the process at all stages – conceptualization (doing the clearance searches), design and development (filing intent to use applications), and product launch (filing statements of use), to name but a few. As we say around here, the job of a good trademark attorney is to take you all the way from the minefield of cluttered competing corporate interests to the end point of bringing everything to a succesful conclusion – a customer buying the product and associating the product with the reputation and messaging you wish to develop. Dare I say it – taking it from a Mess to Yes™ As you saw on PHOSITA last week, the IgniteOKC folks are working on launching their first event and are looking for volunteers and thought leaders. The first planning meeting was last night – but there is still room for more help. Drop Emily Campbell an email if you are interested. Posted by Douglas Sorocco, September 24, 2009 at 10:27 am Permalink: Brands that are weird – Avoiding the Waldo Paradox 3 Comments IgniteOKC – Leadership Committee Meeting Want to be a part of something cool in Oklahoma City? Well – come help us prepare for IgniteOKC. We will provide some snacks and drinks – you provide your brain and creativity. What is Ignite, you ask? Ignite is a community intellect exchange – it is an open forum to share your knowledge, learn what others think is cool and socialize. Ignite captures the best of geek culture in a series of five-minute speedy presentations on topics ranging from “The Best Way to Buy a Car” to “Hacking Chocolate.” Imagine that you’re on stage in front of an audience of hundreds of people, doing a five-minute presentation using a slide deck that auto-forwards every 15 seconds, whether you’re ready or not. What would you do? What would you say? Could you stand the pressure? Wanna find out more? Click here to find out how some of the smartest minds on the planet dealt with the Ignite five-minute presentation format as Brady Forrest, co-creator of Ignite, highlights a different talk from Ignites all around the world. Some of our favorite presentations… Great Designers Steal by Jeff Veen from Ignite San Francisco How to Work a Crowd by Alexis Bauer from Ignite Sebastopol (California) A must watch for any potential presenter… How and Why to Give and Ignite Talk by Scott Berkun from Ignite Seattle Wanna get involved? There are many jobs that need doing to produce an Ignite. One person can do them all (thought it’s a lot of work), but it’s easier, and more fun, if more people are involved. Dunlap Codding will be hosting a happy hour to organize a leadership committee of people to execute the inaugural event and grow Ignite OKC into a signature metro event. We thought you would be an excellent asset to the team. Know anyone else who would would like to be a part of the Ignite OKC leadership committee? Please feel free to bring them along. Here are some of the jobs that need to be done: Marketing/Promotion/Sponsorship/PR coordinators Venue liason Ignite talk coordinator Ignite talk MC Ignite Contest coordinator Ignite Contest MC Videographer Onsite Help — set up, hand out badges and drink tickets, clean up When and Where Please join us Wednesday September 23rd from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. at Iguana Mexican Grill (Google map) to kick off this exciting initiative for Oklahoma City. Please RSVP to Emily Campbell by e-mail ecampbell@dunlapcodding.com or by phone (405) 607-8600. Hope to see you there! If you want to see a live local Ignite event in person… We got scooped! The folks up in Tulsa got out of the gate first – but we don’t mind. We needed to have a little cross-state rivalry to get things cooking. Come join us at IgniteTulsa on September 17 at the Blue Dome Diner. Don’t wait to make your reservation to attend – space is filling up! Posted by Douglas Sorocco, September 11, 2009 at 4:29 pm Permalink: IgniteOKC – Leadership Committee Meeting 3 Comments Google gets a design patent – aka the Twitterverse’s collective head explodes Just a warning – this may sound a little snarky. So, you may or may not have heard – although I find it tough to believe you haven’t heard – but Google received a patent on the familiar search page interface we all know and love. It’s been a hot topic on Twitter the last two days – and I would hazard a guess that it is being viewed as akin to Darth Vader doing the Macarena while shopping for sheets. Or some such nonsense. From a few of the more “interesting” tweets: tompolk: Who’s on crack in the patent office? Google Patents World’s Simplest Home Page http://ow.ly/nZqN estauthamer: Is Google or the US patent Office getting nuts???? Patent on 2 button search interface http://bit.ly/39SDjq yelvington: Don’t de-crapify your homepage. Google has a patent on that.http://tinyurl.com/kro7ol patrics: Patent on Google Homepage?! Not Funny! http://ow.ly/nYmm #software#patents ratkat: @stevelitchfield I think it is a bit scary that even such an iconic design asgoogle’s home page should be granted a patent GyrRaven: Lauren Weinstein’s Blog: Will Google’s “Home Page” Patent Embolden Patent Abuse? http://ow.ly/nY2p So – do you hear the sound of the apocalypse coming? Patent abuse! Patent abuse! (Are they talking about the intellectual property right or about not cleaning your leather shoes?) Well, it doesn’t surprise me that PHOSITA readers are probably not too concerned about the issuance of Design Patent No. D599,372 (PDF) because you are well aware that it is a design patent and not a utility patent. It is only one word, I know – but that one word makes a tremendous amount of difference. A difference that is obviously lost on the twits above. A utility patent protects the functional expression of an idea while a design patent protects the ornamental design of a functional product. A design patent does not protect the functional aspects of the product itself – rather, it protects how the product is decorated and/or designed. Google cannot keep anyone from “de-crapifying” their website (e.g., the functional aspects of a product) – it can merely keep you from “de-crapifying” your website in a manner in which embodies the patented design or any colorable imitation. It is kind of like a trademark – you can’t look like Google’s ornamental design – but you can still “de-crapify” your website and/or create a better search engine. (I wonder how high I will rank in Google now for the term “de-crapifying”?) As such, the scope of protection afforded a design patent is much more limited in nature, scope and breadth than a utility patent. And it only lasts for 14 years. So – to the twits (or is it twitts?) – CHILL OUT. The world is not ending, the system is not spinning off the rails – Google was granted a property right in the ornamental design of its unique website. Furthermore, why shouldn’t Google be allowed to protect it’s unique design? From a cursory review of the history of the page – at the time (and up to this day) many people thought the design was (1) dumb, (2) two simplistic, (3) moronic, (4) genius… no one thought it was “done before” – i.e., it was novel – no one or only very few designers were taking the simple and clean route Google took at the time. It stands out in a crowd and has become a very important symbol of Google – i.e., something that they would want to protect and keep people from copying. It also protects the user – if you see the interface, you know it is Google – and not some porn site or spammer. I know it is the hip cool thing right now to “fight the man” – with the “man” being the patent system, but I really wish people would take a few minutes to actually figure out what occurred and what it means. It would save you a lot of wasted “outrage” and tweeting. There are abuses of the patent system – Google getting a design patent is not one of them. Then again – what would patent attorneys do with their evenings if they didn’t have to correct the record? /snark (End of snark for those of you “not in the know”) Image by Mermay19 on Flickr Creative Commons Posted by Douglas Sorocco, September 3, 2009 at 3:25 pm Permalink: Google gets a design patent – aka the Twitterverse’s collective head explodes 5 Comments Confessions of a Trademark Junkie It’s been awhile since I’ve provided commentary on the blog but after attending a local marketing presentation, I just had to share my two cents about the event. “Hey Emily! What are you up to next Tuesday? Let me tell you – I just signed you up to attend a marketing presentation. It will be a good experience for you and you may pick up a few tips on branding.” Little did I know but the President of our firm signed me up to attend a marketing presentation conducted by a local news station at a nearby hotel. Sounds interesting. I’m game for learning new things. I arrived only to be greeted by an account executive, a woman who shall remain nameless, that claimed she “researched” our “company” before the event “but couldn’t seem to remember what our website said.” Since she obviously did not read our website, she will likely not read this article nor be ashamed that I am now revealing this information about her. “What is a codding?” she asked. I just chuckled. Not a great way to start a sales pitch — Ay yay yay. This account executive was whisked away to attend to another guest. Although everyone else in the room was paired with another account executive, I was now left alone. I was then approached by another account executive – AE #2, but who’s keeping track? He started to lay the sales tactics on thick, explaining the marketing program to me and the wonderful opportunities television advertising could offer to our firm. Luckily, after a few minutes, we were directed to a second room where a presentation was about to begin. (At this point I had an eerie flashback to sorority rush – is there a skit about to take place?) A third, yes third, account executive introduces himself to me. We sit down to watch a video presentation about television marketing. After the video presentation, a PowerPoint presentation begins. The speaker talks about how television marketing can raise consumer awareness of your brand. I perked up when he flashed a bunch of trademarks up on the screen. Sadly though, he lost me when he started to explain brands as generic source identifiers. “What is this?” he said as he pointed to a picture of some cell phones and MP3 players. “iPhones and iPods” someone said. “When your little one gets a ‘boo-boo,’ what do they ask for?” he asked. “A Band-Aid.” “Exactly,” he says, “they don’t ask for a self-adhesive strip, they ask for a Band-Aid.” I spent the next five minutes explaining to my third account executive that local television advertising is probably not the appropriate avenue to advertise our law firm’s services. Once he got the hint that I was not prepared to sign on the dotted line, we spent the next ten minutes or so discussing the dichotomy between brand awareness and single-source brand awareness. There is an unfortunate disconnect between marketing and legal (particularly trademark) departments. This was evident in the presentation I had just witnessed. During the presentation, the speaker genericised each trademark he discussed, referring to all MP3 players as “iPods” and all self-adhesive strips as “Band-Aids.” I think Johnson & Johnson’s trademark attorneys would have groaned when the presenter referred to their products as Band-Aids, rather than Band-Aid® brand adhesive bandages. Has all their hard work been ignored? What about their catchy theme song? “I am stuck on Band-Aid® Brand cause Band-Aid®’s stuck on me.” I asked the third account executive if he understood that trademark rights could be completely lost if a brand becomes generic. Brands like Aspirin, Escalator, and Trampoline are a few examples of things that were once brands but are now simply generic terms for acetylsalicylic acid, moving staircases, and rebound tumblers. From a trademark perspective, while we would like for people to be aware of brands, what’s equally as important is that people know that the brand represents a single source and not a generic line of products. We want people to think of only one source or one company when they think of Band-Aid® brand adhesive bandages. We want people to know that the brand of self-adhesive bandages that they can trust is Band-Aid® brand adhesive bandages because the brand stands for quality and consistency. When you buy Band-Aid® brand adhesive bandages, you know that it will protect your little-one’s boo-boos. “So how can we do this,” the third account executive asked. “How can we raise consumer awareness while at the same time, point to only one source of those products?” Start with making sure that the company itself is properly using the brand. There are few rules for proper trademark usage that should be shared with the advertising and marketing department so that everyone is on the same page. Rule number one — never use a trademark as a noun and stay vigilant in keeping others from using your mark as a noun. For example, The Lego Company warns users against using the term LEGO® as a noun – if you enter the term “legos” into a search engine, the following statement would appear: Using a trademark as a noun is a sure-fire way to transform your brand into a generic term for a particular type of product. Consider the following – “My kids love to play with LEGOS.” In the first example, the speaker could be referring to store bought bricks, The Original Toy CompanyTM bricks, Playskool® bricks, or LEGO® bricks since the speaker is using the term LEGOS to mean bricks. To use the brand properly, the brand should be used as an adjective. For example, the following would be appropriate – “My kids love to play with LEGO bricks.” Another strategy companies can use to protect their brand names is to monitor and manage external usage of the mark. You should educate the media about proper usage of your company’s brands and also send reminder letters and, in some cases, cease and desist letters to third parties who are incorrectly using your marks. If you find that someone is potentially infringing upon your company’s brands, you should perform some level of due diligence to protect what is, in many cases, a company’s most valuable asset – it’s reputation. So, what did a trademark attorney attending a “sales dog and pony show” learn – well, raising awareness of your brand is one thing, but making sure that consumers associate that brand with only one source of products is another. After all, what we don’t want, is for people to see our brand and think of a generic line of products. We want our advertising to encourage people to buy our product, not just any product. Oh, and if you are still wondering what a Codding is, please check out our firm website at www.dunlapcodding.com. Tags: Trademark, Branding, Advertising, Genericism Posted by Emily E. Campbell, September 1, 2009 at 5:44 pm Permalink: Confessions of a Trademark Junkie 3 Comments What Makes a Successful Brand – Pepsi vs Coca-Cola Consumerist posted this chart and, like them, I find it fascinating regarding the notion of branding and trademarks. The evolution of the Pepsi logo over time doesn’t strike me as coming from a place of strength – whereas the Coca-Cola logo appears to be timeless. The red scripted colors cause an obvious problem with the Coca-Cola logo and the bottle cap visual dates the logo to a particular technology that has been long discarded. Beyond the simple curiosity factor – this is a great example of spending time choosing a name, logo, colors etc. that don’t tie your brand to a particular technology, place in time, etc. Getting from the “mess to yes” is a complicated task – but when it is executed correctly – the outcome should be timeless. I must admit that the 1973 Pepsi logo made me recall spending summer evenings at the lake with my family… So the question is — Does a “good” brand evolve over time or is it something that has “it” at the moment of conception. Just a little something fun for the dog days of summer. Posted by Douglas Sorocco, August 3, 2009 at 4:08 pm Permalink: What Makes a Successful Brand – Pepsi vs Coca-Cola 4 Comments Patent Reform Opponents Send Letter to President Obama Well, that surely didn’t take long. Gene Quinn, at IPWatchdog.com, points to a letter sent to President Obama (PDF) from over 130 manufacturing companies located in the United States urging the administration to shelve patent reform. In the letter, the parties clearly articulate their concerns about patent reform “proposals” that have been floated and the perceived consequences to manufacturing employment and competitiveness. While there is some ambiguity out there about President Obama’s plans and priorities regarding patent reform (although, he did mention the awful “gold plated” scenario) – I think it is probably too early to read tea leaves. Labor unions and traditional Democratic labor groups backed the campaign and election efforts in unprecedented ways and they will have a significant voice and influence at the negotiating table – a position that may have been somewhat discounted in the previous administration. Considering labor’s opposition to patent reform in 2007, President Obama’s “perceived” willingness to push patent reform should not be taken for granted by his high technology/software supporters. It appears that the manufacturing letter may be the first salvo to remind President Obama of the strength of support he received from labor and the manufacturing sectors. I would predict that similar letters in support of patent reform will be forthcoming from the Coalition of Anti-Patent This and Coalition of Anti-Patent That. (Did that last sentence tip off my personal opinion of the matter?) One question I do have – does anyone really think these letters are useful? My guess is that 5-10 letters written by constituents are more important to the vast majority of members of Congress than a form letter signed on by a couple hundred interested parties. But then again, I am a fan of “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” Who will have the administration’s ear? My best guess – no one. In the face of the overwhelming challenges facing the country this year and the relatively low profile of patent reform, I would bet that patent reform is dead for serious consideration in the 111th Congress. If I am wrong – I’ll buy you a beer if you ask. Catch is – you have to come to Oklahoma City to collect. Turning away from WAGs, Gene does an excellent job excerpting the manufacturers’ concerns and the jostling for position that the different patent reform stakeholders are engaged. Highlights include: “A recent study focusing on the impact of apportionment legislation estimates that this change alone would put at risk up to 298,000 manufacturing jobs and reduce R&D investment by up to $66 billion. This would be a negative outcome even when our economy is strong; at a time of economic crisis, it would be tragic.” “We feel strongly that the prosperity of a few companies within two industries should not come at the expense of a larger group of stakeholders.” “[T]here is no explosion in patent litigation. In 1993, lawsuits were 1.45% of patents granted. In 2007, lawsuits were 1.48% of patents granted. The number fluctuates from year to year, but it has never indicated a system out of control. (Source: USPTO Annual Reports, Federal Judicial Statistics)” “[T]here is no explosion in patent damage awards. Adjusting for inflation, the median annual patent damages award has actually dropped slightly over the last 13 years. In constant dollars, the median was $3.9 million from 1995 through 2000, and $3.8 million from 2001 through 2007. (Source: 2008 Patent Litigation Study, PriceWaterhouseCoopers.)” “It is crucial to remember that patent damages are imposed only after patent validity and infringement are determined on the merits. In other words, those paying damages have been found to have unlawfully used intellectual property belonging to someone else.” “It would be a terrible mistake to allow the increase in patent applications to become an excuse to undermine patent protections. Rather, Congress should take advantage of Americans’ growing desire to invent by ensuring that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (”USPTO”) has the resources and management to handle the increased number of applications in a thorough and timely manner.” “The legislation introduced in the 110th Congress dealt with patent issues on the back end rather than the front end, i.e., it attempted to deal with the symptoms of poor patent quality and growing pendency rather than addressing these issues directly. Many of the problems identified by legislative reform proponents as reasons for such reforms are best addressed instead by reforms of USPTO operations.” A few other patent blogs have taken a stab at the proverbial crystal ball gazing as to President Obama’s intentions – Patent Baristas, Patently-O, and PatentHawk, for example. One, two, many, none, or all of us may be wrong/right. What do you think? I would love to hear your thoughts/comments. Posted by Douglas Sorocco, February 10, 2009 at 10:07 pm Permalink: Patent Reform Opponents Send Letter to President Obama 4 Comments
Posted by Douglas Sorocco, January 19, 2010 at 11:41 pm Permalink: IgniteOKC Sparks Creativity and Rockin Good Time 2 Comments
The Ignite phenomenon is bubbling up throughout the world and it is happening within the state of Oklahoma as well (yes, even Oklahoma!)
Last week was the first Ignite Tulsa event and our own Emily Campbell dove into the fray with a talk entitled “How Not to be Waldo: Brands that Stand Out in a Crowd.” I may be a bit biased – but she rocked it!
Emily’s mantra of “Be Weird, Be Different and Think Outside the Box” is a great way of thinking about your branding efforts and the need to stand out in a crowd.
It is a bit unusual for an attorney to be thinking about branding – Emily may have some additional thoughts on that topic – but, when you think about it – it makes perfect sense. Trademark attorneys see the process at all stages – conceptualization (doing the clearance searches), design and development (filing intent to use applications), and product launch (filing statements of use), to name but a few.
As we say around here, the job of a good trademark attorney is to take you all the way from the minefield of cluttered competing corporate interests to the end point of bringing everything to a succesful conclusion – a customer buying the product and associating the product with the reputation and messaging you wish to develop. Dare I say it – taking it from a Mess to Yes™
As you saw on PHOSITA last week, the IgniteOKC folks are working on launching their first event and are looking for volunteers and thought leaders. The first planning meeting was last night – but there is still room for more help. Drop Emily Campbell an email if you are interested.
Posted by Douglas Sorocco, September 24, 2009 at 10:27 am Permalink: Brands that are weird – Avoiding the Waldo Paradox 3 Comments
Want to be a part of something cool in Oklahoma City? Well – come help us prepare for IgniteOKC. We will provide some snacks and drinks – you provide your brain and creativity. What is Ignite, you ask? Ignite is a community intellect exchange – it is an open forum to share your knowledge, learn what others think is cool and socialize. Ignite captures the best of geek culture in a series of five-minute speedy presentations on topics ranging from “The Best Way to Buy a Car” to “Hacking Chocolate.” Imagine that you’re on stage in front of an audience of hundreds of people, doing a five-minute presentation using a slide deck that auto-forwards every 15 seconds, whether you’re ready or not. What would you do? What would you say? Could you stand the pressure? Wanna find out more? Click here to find out how some of the smartest minds on the planet dealt with the Ignite five-minute presentation format as Brady Forrest, co-creator of Ignite, highlights a different talk from Ignites all around the world. Some of our favorite presentations…
A must watch for any potential presenter…
Wanna get involved? There are many jobs that need doing to produce an Ignite. One person can do them all (thought it’s a lot of work), but it’s easier, and more fun, if more people are involved. Dunlap Codding will be hosting a happy hour to organize a leadership committee of people to execute the inaugural event and grow Ignite OKC into a signature metro event. We thought you would be an excellent asset to the team. Know anyone else who would would like to be a part of the Ignite OKC leadership committee? Please feel free to bring them along. Here are some of the jobs that need to be done:
When and Where Please join us Wednesday September 23rd from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. at Iguana Mexican Grill (Google map) to kick off this exciting initiative for Oklahoma City. Please RSVP to Emily Campbell by e-mail ecampbell@dunlapcodding.com or by phone (405) 607-8600. Hope to see you there! If you want to see a live local Ignite event in person… We got scooped! The folks up in Tulsa got out of the gate first – but we don’t mind. We needed to have a little cross-state rivalry to get things cooking. Come join us at IgniteTulsa on September 17 at the Blue Dome Diner. Don’t wait to make your reservation to attend – space is filling up!
Posted by Douglas Sorocco, September 11, 2009 at 4:29 pm Permalink: IgniteOKC – Leadership Committee Meeting 3 Comments
Just a warning – this may sound a little snarky.
So, you may or may not have heard – although I find it tough to believe you haven’t heard – but Google received a patent on the familiar search page interface we all know and love.
It’s been a hot topic on Twitter the last two days – and I would hazard a guess that it is being viewed as akin to Darth Vader doing the Macarena while shopping for sheets. Or some such nonsense.
From a few of the more “interesting” tweets:
tompolk: Who’s on crack in the patent office? Google Patents World’s Simplest Home Page http://ow.ly/nZqN estauthamer: Is Google or the US patent Office getting nuts???? Patent on 2 button search interface http://bit.ly/39SDjq yelvington: Don’t de-crapify your homepage. Google has a patent on that.http://tinyurl.com/kro7ol patrics: Patent on Google Homepage?! Not Funny! http://ow.ly/nYmm #software#patents ratkat: @stevelitchfield I think it is a bit scary that even such an iconic design asgoogle’s home page should be granted a patent GyrRaven: Lauren Weinstein’s Blog: Will Google’s “Home Page” Patent Embolden Patent Abuse? http://ow.ly/nY2p
tompolk: Who’s on crack in the patent office? Google Patents World’s Simplest Home Page http://ow.ly/nZqN
estauthamer: Is Google or the US patent Office getting nuts???? Patent on 2 button search interface http://bit.ly/39SDjq
yelvington: Don’t de-crapify your homepage. Google has a patent on that.http://tinyurl.com/kro7ol
patrics: Patent on Google Homepage?! Not Funny! http://ow.ly/nYmm #software#patents
ratkat: @stevelitchfield I think it is a bit scary that even such an iconic design asgoogle’s home page should be granted a patent
GyrRaven: Lauren Weinstein’s Blog: Will Google’s “Home Page” Patent Embolden Patent Abuse? http://ow.ly/nY2p
So – do you hear the sound of the apocalypse coming? Patent abuse! Patent abuse! (Are they talking about the intellectual property right or about not cleaning your leather shoes?)
Well, it doesn’t surprise me that PHOSITA readers are probably not too concerned about the issuance of Design Patent No. D599,372 (PDF) because you are well aware that it is a design patent and not a utility patent. It is only one word, I know – but that one word makes a tremendous amount of difference. A difference that is obviously lost on the twits above.
A utility patent protects the functional expression of an idea while a design patent protects the ornamental design of a functional product. A design patent does not protect the functional aspects of the product itself – rather, it protects how the product is decorated and/or designed.
Google cannot keep anyone from “de-crapifying” their website (e.g., the functional aspects of a product) – it can merely keep you from “de-crapifying” your website in a manner in which embodies the patented design or any colorable imitation. It is kind of like a trademark – you can’t look like Google’s ornamental design – but you can still “de-crapify” your website and/or create a better search engine. (I wonder how high I will rank in Google now for the term “de-crapifying”?)
As such, the scope of protection afforded a design patent is much more limited in nature, scope and breadth than a utility patent. And it only lasts for 14 years.
So – to the twits (or is it twitts?) – CHILL OUT. The world is not ending, the system is not spinning off the rails – Google was granted a property right in the ornamental design of its unique website.
Furthermore, why shouldn’t Google be allowed to protect it’s unique design?
From a cursory review of the history of the page – at the time (and up to this day) many people thought the design was (1) dumb, (2) two simplistic, (3) moronic, (4) genius… no one thought it was “done before” – i.e., it was novel – no one or only very few designers were taking the simple and clean route Google took at the time. It stands out in a crowd and has become a very important symbol of Google – i.e., something that they would want to protect and keep people from copying.
It also protects the user – if you see the interface, you know it is Google – and not some porn site or spammer.
I know it is the hip cool thing right now to “fight the man” – with the “man” being the patent system, but I really wish people would take a few minutes to actually figure out what occurred and what it means. It would save you a lot of wasted “outrage” and tweeting. There are abuses of the patent system – Google getting a design patent is not one of them.
Then again – what would patent attorneys do with their evenings if they didn’t have to correct the record?
/snark (End of snark for those of you “not in the know”)
Image by Mermay19 on Flickr Creative Commons
Posted by Douglas Sorocco, September 3, 2009 at 3:25 pm Permalink: Google gets a design patent – aka the Twitterverse’s collective head explodes 5 Comments
It’s been awhile since I’ve provided commentary on the blog but after attending a local marketing presentation, I just had to share my two cents about the event.
“Hey Emily! What are you up to next Tuesday? Let me tell you – I just signed you up to attend a marketing presentation. It will be a good experience for you and you may pick up a few tips on branding.”
Little did I know but the President of our firm signed me up to attend a marketing presentation conducted by a local news station at a nearby hotel. Sounds interesting. I’m game for learning new things.
I arrived only to be greeted by an account executive, a woman who shall remain nameless, that claimed she “researched” our “company” before the event “but couldn’t seem to remember what our website said.” Since she obviously did not read our website, she will likely not read this article nor be ashamed that I am now revealing this information about her. “What is a codding?” she asked. I just chuckled. Not a great way to start a sales pitch — Ay yay yay.
This account executive was whisked away to attend to another guest. Although everyone else in the room was paired with another account executive, I was now left alone. I was then approached by another account executive – AE #2, but who’s keeping track? He started to lay the sales tactics on thick, explaining the marketing program to me and the wonderful opportunities television advertising could offer to our firm.
Luckily, after a few minutes, we were directed to a second room where a presentation was about to begin. (At this point I had an eerie flashback to sorority rush – is there a skit about to take place?) A third, yes third, account executive introduces himself to me. We sit down to watch a video presentation about television marketing.
After the video presentation, a PowerPoint presentation begins. The speaker talks about how television marketing can raise consumer awareness of your brand. I perked up when he flashed a bunch of trademarks up on the screen. Sadly though, he lost me when he started to explain brands as generic source identifiers.
“What is this?” he said as he pointed to a picture of some cell phones and MP3 players. “iPhones and iPods” someone said. “When your little one gets a ‘boo-boo,’ what do they ask for?” he asked. “A Band-Aid.” “Exactly,” he says, “they don’t ask for a self-adhesive strip, they ask for a Band-Aid.”
I spent the next five minutes explaining to my third account executive that local television advertising is probably not the appropriate avenue to advertise our law firm’s services. Once he got the hint that I was not prepared to sign on the dotted line, we spent the next ten minutes or so discussing the dichotomy between brand awareness and single-source brand awareness.
There is an unfortunate disconnect between marketing and legal (particularly trademark) departments. This was evident in the presentation I had just witnessed. During the presentation, the speaker genericised each trademark he discussed, referring to all MP3 players as “iPods” and all self-adhesive strips as “Band-Aids.”
I think Johnson & Johnson’s trademark attorneys would have groaned when the presenter referred to their products as Band-Aids, rather than Band-Aid® brand adhesive bandages. Has all their hard work been ignored? What about their catchy theme song? “I am stuck on Band-Aid® Brand cause Band-Aid®’s stuck on me.”
I asked the third account executive if he understood that trademark rights could be completely lost if a brand becomes generic. Brands like Aspirin, Escalator, and Trampoline are a few examples of things that were once brands but are now simply generic terms for acetylsalicylic acid, moving staircases, and rebound tumblers.
From a trademark perspective, while we would like for people to be aware of brands, what’s equally as important is that people know that the brand represents a single source and not a generic line of products. We want people to think of only one source or one company when they think of Band-Aid® brand adhesive bandages. We want people to know that the brand of self-adhesive bandages that they can trust is Band-Aid® brand adhesive bandages because the brand stands for quality and consistency. When you buy Band-Aid® brand adhesive bandages, you know that it will protect your little-one’s boo-boos.
“So how can we do this,” the third account executive asked. “How can we raise consumer awareness while at the same time, point to only one source of those products?”
Start with making sure that the company itself is properly using the brand. There are few rules for proper trademark usage that should be shared with the advertising and marketing department so that everyone is on the same page.
Rule number one — never use a trademark as a noun and stay vigilant in keeping others from using your mark as a noun. For example, The Lego Company warns users against using the term LEGO® as a noun – if you enter the term “legos” into a search engine, the following statement would appear:
Using a trademark as a noun is a sure-fire way to transform your brand into a generic term for a particular type of product. Consider the following – “My kids love to play with LEGOS.” In the first example, the speaker could be referring to store bought bricks, The Original Toy CompanyTM bricks, Playskool® bricks, or LEGO® bricks since the speaker is using the term LEGOS to mean bricks. To use the brand properly, the brand should be used as an adjective. For example, the following would be appropriate – “My kids love to play with LEGO bricks.”
Another strategy companies can use to protect their brand names is to monitor and manage external usage of the mark. You should educate the media about proper usage of your company’s brands and also send reminder letters and, in some cases, cease and desist letters to third parties who are incorrectly using your marks.
If you find that someone is potentially infringing upon your company’s brands, you should perform some level of due diligence to protect what is, in many cases, a company’s most valuable asset – it’s reputation.
So, what did a trademark attorney attending a “sales dog and pony show” learn – well, raising awareness of your brand is one thing, but making sure that consumers associate that brand with only one source of products is another. After all, what we don’t want, is for people to see our brand and think of a generic line of products. We want our advertising to encourage people to buy our product, not just any product.
Oh, and if you are still wondering what a Codding is, please check out our firm website at www.dunlapcodding.com.
Posted by Emily E. Campbell, September 1, 2009 at 5:44 pm Permalink: Confessions of a Trademark Junkie 3 Comments
Consumerist posted this chart and, like them, I find it fascinating regarding the notion of branding and trademarks.
The evolution of the Pepsi logo over time doesn’t strike me as coming from a place of strength – whereas the Coca-Cola logo appears to be timeless.
The red scripted colors cause an obvious problem with the Coca-Cola logo and the bottle cap visual dates the logo to a particular technology that has been long discarded.
Beyond the simple curiosity factor – this is a great example of spending time choosing a name, logo, colors etc. that don’t tie your brand to a particular technology, place in time, etc.
Getting from the “mess to yes” is a complicated task – but when it is executed correctly – the outcome should be timeless.
I must admit that the 1973 Pepsi logo made me recall spending summer evenings at the lake with my family…
So the question is — Does a “good” brand evolve over time or is it something that has “it” at the moment of conception. Just a little something fun for the dog days of summer.
Posted by Douglas Sorocco, August 3, 2009 at 4:08 pm Permalink: What Makes a Successful Brand – Pepsi vs Coca-Cola 4 Comments
Well, that surely didn’t take long.
Gene Quinn, at IPWatchdog.com, points to a letter sent to President Obama (PDF) from over 130 manufacturing companies located in the United States urging the administration to shelve patent reform. In the letter, the parties clearly articulate their concerns about patent reform “proposals” that have been floated and the perceived consequences to manufacturing employment and competitiveness.
While there is some ambiguity out there about President Obama’s plans and priorities regarding patent reform (although, he did mention the awful “gold plated” scenario) – I think it is probably too early to read tea leaves.
Labor unions and traditional Democratic labor groups backed the campaign and election efforts in unprecedented ways and they will have a significant voice and influence at the negotiating table – a position that may have been somewhat discounted in the previous administration. Considering labor’s opposition to patent reform in 2007, President Obama’s “perceived” willingness to push patent reform should not be taken for granted by his high technology/software supporters.
It appears that the manufacturing letter may be the first salvo to remind President Obama of the strength of support he received from labor and the manufacturing sectors. I would predict that similar letters in support of patent reform will be forthcoming from the Coalition of Anti-Patent This and Coalition of Anti-Patent That. (Did that last sentence tip off my personal opinion of the matter?)
One question I do have – does anyone really think these letters are useful? My guess is that 5-10 letters written by constituents are more important to the vast majority of members of Congress than a form letter signed on by a couple hundred interested parties. But then again, I am a fan of “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.”
Who will have the administration’s ear? My best guess – no one. In the face of the overwhelming challenges facing the country this year and the relatively low profile of patent reform, I would bet that patent reform is dead for serious consideration in the 111th Congress. If I am wrong – I’ll buy you a beer if you ask. Catch is – you have to come to Oklahoma City to collect.
Turning away from WAGs, Gene does an excellent job excerpting the manufacturers’ concerns and the jostling for position that the different patent reform stakeholders are engaged. Highlights include:
A few other patent blogs have taken a stab at the proverbial crystal ball gazing as to President Obama’s intentions – Patent Baristas, Patently-O, and PatentHawk, for example. One, two, many, none, or all of us may be wrong/right.
What do you think? I would love to hear your thoughts/comments.
Posted by Douglas Sorocco, February 10, 2009 at 10:07 pm Permalink: Patent Reform Opponents Send Letter to President Obama 4 Comments
The Law Geeks Won!
Join the thousands of daily PHOSITA readers! Enter your email to subscribe to PHOSITA:
We value and respect your privacy and time - you will never receive spam or unwanted emails and can unsubscribe at any time.
Feedburner RSS What is Syndication? List of RSS Readers What is RSS? Check out this tutorial.
the developer incorporated the term Facebook into the name of her app and even created a similar icon for the app. (Seen at right.) The app was recently shut down for supposed trademark infringement. 
If you haven’t heard, be sure to visit www.google.com before the days end. Also, check out The Official Google Blog for more information about their “new” company name, Topeka. The best part of the Google blog post is at the bottom. Google notes that branded products can achieve such popularity that they can sometimes become generic (much like aspirin, cellophane and trampoline). To be sure that Google’s new name is not subject to genericism, Google provides tips on how to use their new name. ![igniteokc_logo[1]](http://dunlapcodding.com/phosita/wp-content/images/IgniteOKC_logo.jpg){kind=logo}
organizing and spearheading the steering committee for Oklahoma City’s first Ignite event – IgniteOKC (Twitter: @igniteokc).
