I have a bit of a rant to make for this post…

In a recent article found through the Wired Blog Network, it seems as though T-Mobile has claimed they own the color magenta. …really.

And with expected big business “my ‘PEN’ is bigger than yours” force, they’ve scribed a cease and desist letter (of sorts) asking Engadget Mobile to change the logo color throughout their website and communications collateral.

Now, as I clearly stated in a previous post, I’m not a trade lawyer. But, I am a graphic designer by trade. I’ve designed logos and developed brand standards for countless companies – from ma’ and pa’ start-ups, to 10,000+ employee behemoths. I’ve worked within the private label industry and followed 500-page SOPs and branding guides for everything from corporate communications collateral, to packaging, and broadcast video. So, when I see stories like this, I have to stop and question the need for T-Mobile to take this kind of action. What do they really think they are protecting (or accomplishing) by taking these actions?

T-Mobile is a cellular/mobile phone service provider. Engadget Mobile is an online news/commentary blog focused on mobile technology. As a matter of fact, Engadget Mobile has even written articles on T-Mobile… some even somewhat flattering. That’s about as close to “similar” as the two companies get.

Where is the confusion? How could someone be dense enough to confuse the logos for the two companies based on the color magenta?

I agree, there is a need for brand protection in a competitive environment. But let’s make it clear what the “competitive” environment encompasses. My logo mark uses 70% black. Can I “lawyer-up” and chase T-Mobile for using “my gray” in their logo? I fear that my marketplace may confuse T-Mobile as a provider or graphic services… Sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it?

Of course, I’ve been assured that this is no April Fool’s joke… So, please comment and let me know your thoughts. Has T-Mobile taken brand protection (a little) too far?

Until next time… take a deep breath and count to 10.

And

Keep Cooking!
Andrew

More articles on the T-Mobile action:
here
here
here
and here…

On the front page of Friday’s Des Moines Register, columnist Abby Simons writes about a trademark infringement case based on our own Iowa Lottery.

It seems as though the lawyers from Sizzler International, the “high-brow” Sizzler steak restaurant chain, have sent a cease-and-desist request based on trademark infringement using the word “Sizzler” in Iowa Lottery’s “Hot Lotto Sizzler” game. Iowa Lottery, in an effort to quash the claim have decided to take the case through to a juried trial to claim they have all the rights to use the word.

Now, having been a private label graphic designer for the last 15 years, I understand the need for brand protection and clear trademark definition in the marketplace. But these items, a restaurant chain and a lottery game, don’t have even a minuscule chance of crossing paths in their respective markets. Of course, I’m no trademark lawyer (I’d call in Brett Trout for a more professional opinion on this), but (to my understanding) “trademark infringement” implies that there would be confusion in the market, due to a party impeding on an already established trademark or brand.

I don’t see it… I also can’t see the reason for the Lottery officials and their counsel to even take the cease-and-desist seriously.

Referenced in the article are also Hormel, due to their “Little Sizzler” sausages and rapper Miguel Collins, who goes by the stage name “Sizzla.” There wasn’t any reference to cease-and-desist orders being sent to them…

I simply can’t see why Sizzler International or the Iowa Lottery are even in discussion about this. What do you think? Would you EVER confuse the “Hot Lotto Sizzler” ticket and its subsequent marketing with any restaurant or other “sizzling” food product?

I’d call it food for thought… (sorry for the pun). Let me know what you think.

Keep Cooking!
Andrew