Skip to main content

The Paradox of Trademark

Much of this tutorial has concerned intellectual property issues as they relate to copyright. Copyright is, in many ways, the form of intellectual property that we discuss the most. After all, we live in a very connected media culture, so creative media is really part of our environment. Nevertheless, no discussion of intellectual property, and certainly no tutorial series on intellectual property, would be complete without at least some detailed discussion of the other major forms, namely patent, trademark, and trade secret. As such, I'll finish this series with at least one installment on each of these, beginning with trademark.

Again, we discuss copyright perhaps more often than any other form of intellectual property, but trademark may well saturate our environment even more thoroughly than copyright. We just don't seem to discuss it quite as often, and in some ways trademark isn't as fascinating as debates about file-sharing, fair use, or derivative works. Nevertheless, thanks to the 20th century arising of sophisticated marketing strategies, we are very much assaulted by brands. Trademark, of course, is the means by which those brand names, logos, mascots, and slogans are protected by law.

Trademark can be understood to serve two functions. On the one hand, trademark is a form of consumer protection against fraud. By registering its trademark, a firm gains assurance that it is the only firm legally able to use its registered mark for business purposes. Consumers are then assured that a given brand name or logo always denotes a product from a particular firm. If another firm attempts to use the registered mark in hopes of confusing consumers and capitalizing on the success of another firm, the trademark holder can sue for trademark infringement. On the other hand, trademarks also provide an incentive for firms to maintain consistency and quality of their products. Since a given mark is always associated with the same firm, it is in the firm's interest to ensure that consumers have a positive association with the mark. If the quality of the firms products is inconsistent or unacceptable, consumers know that they can avoid the firm by avoiding the firm's mark. Therefore, it is in the firm's interest to release high quality products and convince consumers that their mark is an indicator of good quality, ideal price, usw.

I suppose it then goes without saying that trademark is intimately connected with advertising. To cultivate positive associations between mark and product, firms invest heavily in marketing their brand. At base, advertising makes consumers aware of a brand and its associated product or products, but advertising is also the front line for creating positive associations with the mark. Firms need to do more than simply promote their brand. They also need to make sure that their brand is closely associated with their product, potentially so much so that consumers cannot think about the product without thinking about the brand. Of course, the strategies for realizing that goal also undermine trademark itself. If a firm is successful at making its mark “a household name,” the trademark risks entering the language as a generic description of the product. Bayer provides the most famous historical example in its loss of the trademark for aspirin.

When Bayer came on the scene, there was no way of patenting the extract of willowbark. It was a chemical found in nature, and most chemists sold willowbark extract as a pain reliever. Bayer did not have an innovative process for extraction, so it could not patent any process associated with the product. Nevertheless, it trademarked “aspirin” and began to sell its willowbark extract under that name. Once consumers got used to associating “aspirin” with willowbark extract, “aspirin” became a generic. Consumers did not ask for “willowbark extract, aspirin-brand.” Instead, they simply wanted aspirin. The term became a generic description, and as a result, Bayer lost their trademark.

Here, we have the essential paradox of trademark. A successful trademark is inevitably associated with the product, and that associated is built and sustained by advertising. Nevertheless, if the mark becomes so associated with the product that they really are one and the same to the consumer, the trademark is no longer valid. To avoid following Bayer's example, firms take a litigious approach. If a firm attempts to control its mark by actively pursuing infringement cases, it can protect its mark while at the same time undermining it through aggressive advertising. The result is our current circumstance, where one might struggle to recall that a Kleenex is actually a Kleenex-brand facial tissue, or that only Johnson and Johnson makes Band-Aid adhesive bandages.

Trademark also invites some problems with censorship. Since the mark is supposed to be associated with one and only firm, so any other use of the trademark may be an infringement. As such, if an artist depicts a ghetto cityscape with a certain recognizable fast food logo towering majestically amids the slum, the owner of the logo might decide that the depiction hurts or dilutes the brand and sue for infringement. For these reasons, as much as Disney has worked to keep Mickey Mouse in copyright, Mickey's place as Disney's mascot, and his face on so much merchandise, ensures that using the image of Mickey for the purpose of criticism of Disney will be problematic even if Steamboat Willie finally lapses into the public domain. Disney can claim that any depiction of their signature rodent dilutes the brand because Mickey is such a readily recognizable symbol of the media giant. One should note that such arguments are readily available to Disney, especially in the wake of non-conventional trademarks, such as UPS's trademark on their signature shade of brown. The firm was able to demonstrate that consumers can distinguish “UPS brown” from other shades of brown, thereby establishing that their shade of brown is associated with their business. Disney clearly has an easier argument to make with respect to the mouse.

In such arguments, we once again run into the paradox of trademark (or perhaps the paradox of advertising). A successful trademark is one that becomes a “household name,” something that everyone recognizes and knows, something that becomes part of the informational environment. No firm can do this effectively without making itself a part of the cultural environment, and as such, the firm's symbols also become part of the cultural environment. At the same time, the firm must worry about diluting its trademark, and protecting it (and itself) from criticism. The best thing that can happen to a firm is to have its trademark replace any other description of its products. The worst thing that can happen to a firm is to have its trademark become a common synonym for something undesirable, useless, disgusting, or evil. Unfortunately, to accomplish the one, a firm must risk the other.


Popular posts from this blog

RPG Systems: An Analogy with UI Design

The current game in our weekly role-playing group is Deadlands. The previous game was Shadowrun. Both rule systems lie closer to the “chunky” side of the spectrum. Shadowrun has a particular reputation for its complex and somewhat cumbersome rules, and while Deadlands has less overall complexity, the system has a degree of granularity that interrupts play more often than it enhances narration. I enjoy role-playing games because I like participating in a good story. The rules system provides a set of constraints for the characters, the setting, and the conflicts. They help give the narrative structure, a background against which the story will take place. Too few rules, and telling an interesting and well-developed story becomes difficult. Too many rules tend to get in the way of individual scenes or events. With the right balance, it’s possible for the game master, usually me, to be sufficiently fluent in the rules system to resolve any conflict without extended consultation of on

The Incredible Lightness of Collaborative Consumption

Last week, we had to exchange our defective futon frame for a new one. The store didn't want to cover transport cost in either direction, so we had to figure out how to get our re-boxed frame from Mountain View to Los Altos. If we had a car, it would not have been very simple since we were aiming to buy a small sedan, nothing that can easily carry the frame and its box. Fortunately, we have a car sharing service that gives us access to a range of vehicles, including a van stored down the street from my building. After work, I grabbed the van, picked up the frame at our place, and then Tara and I drove to the futon to make the swap. I dropped off Tara and the new frame at our place, and then headed back to campus. On returning the van to its parking space, I hopped on a shuttle back to downtown Mountain View. We were able to do all of this because we're not tied to a specific vehicle for all of our transportation needs. The last car we owned was a van, and it came in handy o

Carless in California

For various reasons, we do not own a car despite living deep in American car country. The reasons are largely financial; the cost of living in downtown Mountain View crowds car ownership out of our budget. We pay more to live in a pedestrian friendly neighborhood, so we are less able to afford a car. At the same time, I don't need a car to get to work, and Tara doesn't drive, so any car we had would sit in the carport most of the week. Combine that waste of resources with a reluctance to contribute to the Bay Area's traffic congestion, and forgoing car ownership doesn't sound all that bad. Car sharing services allow us to grab a vehicle as long as we plan ahead a bit. The Caltrain provides access to San Francisco. There are convenience stores and cafes in walking distance, so we don't feel the absence of a car too often. Last night was one of the few times where I did. After getting home from work, we wanted a dinner cheaper than nearby delivery options. The n