fluid trademarks: all fun, or some risk?

26 IntellectualProPertytodayFeBruary,2014

By Perry J. Viscounty, Jennifer L. Barry and daVid B. HazLeHurst of LatHam & Watkins LLP

IntroductIon“Fluid”trademarksreflectanew,mod-

ern approach to branding that has foundgreat success in the Internet age. as thenamesuggests,fluidtrademarksaremarksthat change over time. In that regard, thefluid mark concept contradicts traditionaltrademark principles, which historicallyhave relied on static, unchanging wordsandsymbolswithwhichconsumersdevelopa familiarity over time. this has allowedconsumerstobuildalong-termassociationofagivenmarkwiththeproducerorserviceprovider that such mark represents. Butconsistent with rapidly evolving informa-tion technology – and the correspondingopportunities for novel branding and mar-keting approaches – fluid marks embraceconsumer engagement through dynamic,attention-grabbing brand refreshment andregularlychangingsourceidentification.

likeanychangeinuseofatrademark,however, utilizing fluidmarks is not com-pletely without risk. this article exploresthenatureanduseoffluidmarks,includingthe benefits of employing such marks, aswellaspotentialrisksassociatedwithfluidmarksunderexistingtrademarklaw.

What Is a fluId trademark?Fluidmarksinvolvethecreationanduse

ofavarietyofdifferent,frequentlychangingvariationsofaparticulartrademark,whichvariations coexist alongside the originalmark.thesevariationstypicallyretaincer-tain features of the underlying mark, butincludenewdesignelements.

Examples of Fluid Trademarksthe most notable modern example of

a successful fluid trademark comes fromthe Internet search and advertising com-panyGoogle.asmanyInternetusershaveobservedoverthelastseveralyears,GoogleoftencreatesanddisplaysvariationsoftheGooglelogoonitshomepage.Forexample,during a given holiday, Google uses avariantofitsGooGlemarkthatincorpo-ratesimagesassociatedwiththatparticular

holiday.Googlereferstothesevariationsas“Googledoodles.”anexampleofaGoogledoodlefromarecentchristmasholidaycanbeseenhere:

Google doodles are extremely popular,andhaveattractedtheattentionofboththepressandthepublic.Forexample,Internetand other media outlets commonly reporton the latest doodle.1 In fact, so popularare thedoodles thatGooglehascreatedadedicateddoodlewebpageatwhichvisitorscan view an archive of every doodle thatGooglehaspublished.2

In addition to varying the underlyingGooGle mark by adding design elementsinitsdoodles,Googlehascreatedinteractivemarks.Forexample,onthe30thanniversaryofthefamousarcadegamePac-Man,Google’sdoodle consisted of an interactive Pac-Mangame that featured the letters of the word“Google” in the Pac-Man maze. Visitors totheGooglewebsitewereevenabletoplaythePac-Mangameinthedoodle:3

as another example, the media and webdevelopment company aol has invokedfluidtrademarksusingasingle“invisible”wordmarkthatispresentedagainstvaryingbackgrounds:

aol’s fluidtrademarkis fittingin lightofitsstatedmissionto“inform,entertainandconnecttheworld;”4thedynamic,changingpresentation of its logo communicates thisinformation-agemessagetoconsumers.

anexampleofaninteractivefluidtrade-mark in the physical (i.e. non-Internet)world is the umbrella mark used by theinsurance company travelers. travelershas set up an interactive visual displayof its umbrella mark in the Minneapolisairport. as travelers pass alongside thedisplay,orstopandapproachit,theimagereacts in real time to the traveler’s move-ment: the red flower petals that form theimageoftheumbrellaappeartoblowawayand disperse, scattering randomly. oncetheindividualwalksawayfromthedisplay,thepetalsre-gathertorestoretheumbrellashape:

this fun, engagingdisplaydraws thecon-sumer’s attention and causes him or herliterallytointeractwiththetravelersmark.

thebeveragecompanyPerrieralsohassuccessfullyusedafluidtrademark.WhileGoogle’s and aol’s fluid trademarks var-ied the design elements surrounding theunderlyingmark,Perrier’sfluidtrademarkactually altered the word mark itself. In2006, Perrier launched a campaign thattransformed the word mark PerrIer onits bottles of sparkling water into otherwordsofsimilarlengththat,like“Perrier,”endwith“ier.”thewordsusedbyPerrierincluded “luckier”, “sassier”, “crazier,”“scarier”, “prettier” and “riskier.” Butas can be seen in the images below, thePerrierbrand remained immediately iden-tifiabledespite thewordchangegiven thewords’appearanceonPerrier’swell-knownlabel and bottle, utilizing its otherwiseunchangedcolorationandtradedress:

fluid trademarks: all fun, or some risk?

IntellectualProPertytodayFeBruary,2014 27

ProtectIon of fluId trademarksFederal Registration of Fluid Trademarks

While, as discussed, fluid trademarkscanpresentanengagingapproachtobrandrefreshment, such marks are not wellaccounted for under established trademarkrulesandprocedures.ontheonehand,theSupreme court has recognized that thereis a broad universe of material that canpotentiallyserveasaprotectabletrademark.See Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co., Inc., 514 u.S. 159, 164 (1995) (“It is thesource-distinguishingabilityofamark–notits ontological status as color, shape, fra-grance,wordorsign–thatpermitsittoservethese basic purposes.”). But, and perhapsmoreimportantly,thetrademarkManualofexamining Procedure does not provide forthe federal registrationof fluid trademarks.Specifically,thereisnoestablishedpathforaobtainingatrademarkregistrationcoveringmultiple variations of an underlying mark,which iswhatwouldbeneededtoobtainaregistrationinafluidmark.

Moreover, there is no method for abrandowner todescribea fluid trademarkadequately in a trademark application.tocapturetheessenceofafluidtrademarkforpurposes of a federal trademark applica-tion, theapplicantwouldhave todescribeeachofthedistinctvariationsofthemark.Butthereisnoestablished,straightforwardway to do this. one possibility would beto submit a drawing that captures all ofthe variations, for example through theuseofadottedlineorsomeothermarkingor symbolic indicator that identifies themodifications to the underlying mark thateach respective variation would exhibit.as precedent, an applicant could look toapplications for trade dress registrations.trade dress applicants commonly submitdrawings and descriptions that articulatethescopeandboundsof thesubject tradedress,includingusingdottedlinestodepictfeaturesthatarenotclaimedaspartofthemark,butrather“merely[]showtheposi-tion of the claimed portion of the mark.”Trademark manual of examining Procedure (9thed.) (“tMeP”)§1202.02(c).

However, there is a problem with thisapproach.evenifmultiplevariationscouldbearticulatedwithsatisfactoryprecisionina trademarkapplication, theunitedStatesPatent and trademark office (“Pto”)likelywouldnotpermitregistrationbecausean application for federal trademark reg-istration is limited to just one mark ata time. See tMeP § 807.01; In re Int’l Flavors & Fragrances Inc.,183F.3d1361,1366(Fed.cir.1999)(“underthelanhamact, a trademark application may obtainregistration of only a single mark in anyone application”). analogous applicationsaddressed in the tMeP and trademarkcase law suggest that the Pto may applythis rule to reject registration of a fluidmark. For instance, in In re Upper Deck Co.,59u.S.P.Q.2d1688(t.t.a.B.2001),thettaBfoundinvalidanapplicationthatsought to register a hologram affixed to atradingcardwithoutspecifyingthespecificshapeofthehologram.rather,theapplica-tion sought all variations of the claimedhologram, for example those taking theshapeofabaseballfieldorracingflag.thettaB held that the “missing or change-able” elements of the claimed mark vio-lated the rule that a registrationmay onlycoveronemark.SeeIn re Upper Deck Co.,59 u.S.P.Q.2d 1688, 1690-91 (t.t.a.B.2001); see also tMeP § 807.01. likea hologram application covering multiple“changeable elements,” an application forafluidmarkseekingtoencompassmultipleimages representing the variations of theunderlyingmarkmaylikewiseberejected.

Determining Whether an application covers multiple marks

Whetherafluidmarkapplicationwouldberejectedforseekingtoregistermultiplemarks at once would turn on whether themultiple variations submitted constituted“materially different” drawings. If so, thevariationswouldnotbeallowedasasinglemark under one registration: the tMePprovides that an application includingtwo or more drawings “displaying materi-ally different marks” will be rejected. See tMeP§807.01.

Whether such drawings are materiallydifferentfromoneanotherisnotaclear-cutinquiry. Generally, the analysis focusesonwhether onedrawing (described as the“modifiedmark”inthetMeP)isa“mate-rial alteration” of the other drawing (the“originalmark”).accordingtothetMeP:

the modified mark must containwhat is the essence of the originalmark,andthenewformmustcreatethe impression of being essentiallythe same mark. the general test ofwhether an alteration is material iswhether the mark would have to berepublished after the alteration inorder to fairly present the mark forpurposes of opposition. If one markis sufficientlydifferent fromanothermark as to require republication, itwouldbe tantamount to anewmarkappropriateforanewapplication.

SeetMeP§§807.14et seq.consistentwiththetMeP’sbroaddefini-

tionof“materiallydifferent,”thetrademarktrial and appeal Board (“ttaB”) hasapplieda relatively low standard fordeter-mining when a mark is considered to be“materially different.” See, e.g., In re Hot Stuff Foods, LLC, Serial no. 77392514(t.t.a.B. Mar. 8, 2013) (two marks weremateriallydifferentwhentheoutlineoftop-pingsandcrustwasaddedtoanimageofanoriginally plain slice of a pizza,whichwasshown in the background behind the wordmark Hot StuFF PIZZa); In re Guitar Straps Online, LLC, Serial no. 85047191(t.t.a.B. May 9, 2012) (the addition of a“?”toamarkwasamaterialalteration); In re Thor Tech,Serialno.78717682(t.t.a.B.aug. 13, 2010) (changing a mark fromMt raInIer to raInIer was a materialalteration); In re Spring Café Realty LLC,Serial no. 78536106 (t.t.a.B. oct. 29,2007)(changingamarkfromBarMacHetoBarMarcHewasamaterialalteration).changesassmallastheadditionofahousemarktoatrademarkhaveevenbeenconsid-ered a material alteration. See In re Pierce Foods Corp., 230 u.S.P.Q. 307 (t.t.a.B.1986)(amendmentofamarkbytheadditionofahousemarkwasnotpermitted).

Generally, only when the variations ofa mark are minor does the ttaB con-sider such variations not to be “mate-rial.”See, e.g., In re Innovative Cos., LLC,88 u.S.P.Q.2d 1095 (t.t.a.B. 2008)(“FreedoM Stone” as two wordsheld to not be a material alteration of“FreedoMStone” as a single word);Paris Glove of Canada, Ltd. v. SBC/Sporto Corp.,84u.S.P.Q.2d1856,1862(t.t.a.B.2007) (“[t]here is no material alterationbetween the original, registered aQuaStoP rectangular formof themarkwhichshowsthewordsdepictedontwolines,and… in the case of the semicircular form,


as one word.”); In re Finlay Fine Jewelry Corp., 41u.S.P.Q.2d1152(t.t.a.B.1996)(“nyJeWelryoutlet”notmateriallydifferent from “neW yorK JeWelryoutlet”).

In light of the ttaB’s broad approachto finding drawings to be “materially dif-ferent,” it is likely that most variationsof an underlying mark that form a fluidtrademarkwouldbe consideredmateriallydifferentandthereforenotproperlytreatedasasingleregistration.

Filing separate applications to cover Distinct variations

Becauseitlikelywouldbedifficult–ifnot impossible – to register the differentvariations of an underlying mark throughonetrademarkapplication,abetterstrategywould likelybe to file separate trademarkapplications for each of the variations.For example, Google could register eachof its individual doodles as a separatemark with the Pto. However, there arepractical reasons why registration of thevariantsofafluidtrademarkmaynotbeaneffectiveway toprotect a fluid trademark.the registration process is lengthy, and aparticular variant on a fluid trademark istypically only used by a brand owner fora short duration because the purpose of afluid trademark is tokeep thebrand freshandtokeepconsumersengaged.Moreover,amassing a large portfolio of individualregistrations could become costly in lightofregistrationfeesandlegalfeesrelatingtotheapplicationprocess.

Enforcement of Fluid Trademarks

unregistereD traDemark protection

a fluid trademark can be protected inthe united States even if a brand ownercannot or elects not to obtain a federalregistration. unregistered trademarks areafforded protection under Section 43(a)of the lanham act, state unfair compe-tition laws and common law trademarkrights. thus, fluid trademarks potentiallymayenjoyprotectionasunregisteredtrade-marks. However, an important question iswhether such protection would cover thefluid trademark as a whole (i.e. includingall variations), or if it would cover only aparticular variant within the fluid mark.Forexample,onecanimagineasituationinwhichaninfringercreatesanewvariantofafluidtrademarkthatisnotidenticaltoanyoneof the trademarkowner’svariants,but

issimilartoseveralofthem,andisalogi-calvariationoftheunderlyingmarkbasedon the trademark owner’s already existingvariations. In such a situation, it seemssensibleforthebrandownertobeaffordedtheprotectionofthefullscopeofthefluidtrademark, including variations that maynotbeidenticaltospecificvariationsithadpreviously used, but fall logically withintherangeofvariationscoveredbythefluidmark. this could include, for example, aGoogledoodlecreatedbyathirdpartythatisnotidenticaltoanyexistingdoodle,e.g.,one that relates to a holiday for which nodoodlehasalreadybeencreatedbyGoogle.

althoughthisissuehasnotbeensquarelyaddressedby thecourts, thecaseofLouis Vuitton Malletier v. Dooney & Burke, Inc.,454F.3d108(2dcir.2006),touchesuponmany of the issues that may face a trade-markownerattemptingtoenforceitsrightsin a fluid trademark. In that case, louisVuittonhadbeenusingitsentwined“lV”initials (the “toile Monogram Mark”) foroverahundredyearsandownedanincon-testable federal registration for its toileMonogramMark.Id. at112. Forexample:

Seeu.S.registrationnos.0,297,594(Sept.20,1932)(luggage,pocketbooks,satchels,and hat/shoe boxes); 1,643,625 (May 7,1991) (leather and imitation leatherprod-ucts,includingtraveling,hand,andshoul-derbagsusedforluggage).

In october 2002, louis Vuittonlaunched a new series of handbags thatfeaturedthetoileMonogramMarkprintedin 33 bright colors on a white or blackbackground (the “Monogram MulticolorePattern Mark”). Similar to a fluid trade-mark variant, the Monogram MulticolorPatternMarkwasamutationoftheunder-lying toile Monogram Mark. one yearafterlouisVuittonlauncheditshandbags,

defendant dooney & Burke introduced acollection of handbags which featured itsown“dB”monograminavarietyofbrightcolors set against a white background. aside-by-sidecomparisonoflouisVuitton’sMonogram Multicolor pattern and dooney&Burke’smulticolordBmonogrampatternisshownhere:

In light of aesthetic similarities betweenthe dooney & Burke handbags and thelouis Vuitton handbags, louis VuittonassertedinfringementofbothitsregisteredtoileMonogramMarkanditsunregisteredMonogramMulticolorePatternMarkagainstdooney&Burke.theSoutherndistrictofnew york denied louis Vuitton’s motionforapreliminaryinjunctionagainstdooney& Burke’s continued sale of the hand-bags. although it held that luis Vuitton’sclaimedmarkwasprotectable, it foundnolikelihood of confusion between the twocompanies’handbags.

onappeal, theSecondcircuitaffirmedin part and vacated in part. the courtfocused its analysis on the unregisteredMonogramMulticolorePatternMark,whichlouis Vuitton claimed to consist of thesynergy between the bright colors andthe toile Monogram Marks. the courtexplained that, to qualify for protectionunderSection43(a),anunregisteredmarkmust be distinctive. this requires a find-ing of “inherent” distinctiveness, or thatthe mark has acquired “secondary mean-ing.” the court held that louis Vuitton’sMulticolore Monogram Pattern Mark wasoriginalinthehandbagmarket,andthusitwasinherentlydistinctive.Id.additionally,the Multicolore Monogram Pattern Markearned praise among consumers, and hadbecome famous almost instantly. thus,the Multicolore Monogram Pattern Markwas both inherently distinctive and hadacquired secondary meaning, and wasthereforeprotectable.Id.

astolikelihoodofconfusion,theSecondcircuit remanded the case back to thedistrict court, finding that the lower courtimproperly made a side-by-side compari-son of the two marks, rather than com-paring the marks “sequentially,” as they


are seen in the marketplace. on remand,the district court ultimately threw outthe case on summary judgment, holdingthat there was no likelihood of confusion,largelybecauselouisVuitton’sMulticoloreMonogramPatternMarkusedalargerfontsizeandconsistedofacombinationoflet-tersandshapes.See Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Dooney & Bourke, Inc.,561F.Supp.2d368(S.d.n.y.2008).

a few lessons can be learned from theLouis Vuitton case in the fluid trademarkcontext.First,evenif theunderlyingmarkis registered, it is possible that the courtmay focus on unregistered rights in thevariationratherthantheregisteredrightsintheunderlyingmark.thus, it is importantthat a trademark owner be able to articu-late clearly the scope of the fluid trade-mark variant over which it claims rights.additionally,itmaybedifficulttoprotectavariantofa fluid trademarkunderSection43(a) because that section of the lanhamactrequiresthatthemarkbedistinctive.Itislikelythatwhiletheunderlyingmarkofa fluid trademark is inherently distinctiveor has acquired secondary meaning, anygivenvariantofthefluidtrademarkmaynotbeinherentlydistinctiveandmaynothaveacquired secondary meaning. not everyvariationwillachieveimmediatefamelikelouis Vuitton’s Multicolore MonogramPatternMarkdid.

other intellectual property protections

othertypesofintellectualpropertyprotec-tion,suchascopyrightorpatentprinciples,may afford protection to fluid trademarks.copyrightprotectsoriginalworksofauthor-ship fixed ina tangiblemediumof expres-sion, and therefore likely would coveroriginal designs that are used to fluidize atrademark. Indeed, courts and commenta-tors have long acknowledged that trade-marks may be copyrighted. See J. Thomas mccarThy, mccarThy on Trademarks and unfair comPeTiTion § 6:18 (4th ed.) (“animagecanbebothcopyrightedandatrade-mark.”).thus, eachvariationcomprisingafluid mark could potentially be eligible forcopyrightprotection.

Patent lawmayalsoaffordsomeprotec-tion to fluid marks. design patents pro-tect the ornamental design of a functionalitem, such as handbags and sunglasses.See, e.g., u.S.Patentnos.d466,689 (luisVuitton handbag); d557,325 S1 (oakleysunglasses). thus, to the extent variousaspectsofafluidmarkconstitutean“origi-

nal[] and ornamental design for an articleof manufacture,” they may be protected asdesignpatents.35u.S.c.§171.evenutil-itypatentsmayoffersomeprotection,totheextent a fluid mark implicates a “new anduseful process, machine, manufacture, orcompositionofmatter.”35u.S.c.§101.Forexample, Google obtained a utility patentrelating to its Google doodles. the patent,entitled “System and Method for enticingusers to aWebSite,” covers amethod forperiodically changing a home page so itappears to display a story line. See u.S.Patentno.7,912,915(March22,2011).

rIsks of usInG fluId trademarksThird-Party Variations of Underlying Mark

Bytheirdynamicandinteractivenature,fluid trademarks may imply an invitationthatconsumersshouldrespondtochangesinagivenmark,includingbycreatingtheirownuniquemodificationstotheunderlyingmark(e.g.,onablogorsocialmediafeed).this could result in rapid creation andproliferationofunauthorizedvariationsofamarkbyconsumersandotherthirdparties.

thiscanbeproblematicbecauseenforc-ing fluid trademark rights against a con-sumerwhocreateshisorherownvariationmay be difficult under the doctrine of“nominativefairuse.”nominativefairuseprecludes trademark infringement liabilitywhere (1) the product or service cannotbe readily identified without using thetrademark;(2)theuseronlyusesasmuchof themark as is necessary for identifica-tion;and(3)theuserdoesnothingtosug-gest sponsorship or endorsement by thetrademark owner. New Kids on the Block v. News Am. Pub., Inc., 971F.2d302,308(9th cir. 1992). unauthorized consumer-created variations of a given mark couldbe deemed “nominative fair use” if thesecriteriaaresatisfied,andthereforecouldbebeyondthecontrolofthemark’sowner.Forinstance, if a consumer invokes the markforpurposesofcommunicatingnewsaboutthe brand or creating a parody regardingthebrand,thiswouldlikelybeprotectedasnominativefairuse. See, e.g., Mattel, Inc. v. Walking Mountain Prods., 353 F.3d 792,812 (9th cir. 2003) (“Barbie would notbe readily identifiable in a photographicworkwithoutuseoftheBarbielikenessandfigure. [defendant] used only so much aswas necessary to make his parodic use ofBarbiereadilyidentifiable,anditishighlyunlikely that any reasonable consumer

wouldhavebelievedthatMattelsponsoredorwasaffiliatedwithhiswork.”).

Moreover,evenifaconsumer’suseisnotprotected by nominative fair use, a brandowner may not wish to enforce its rightsagainst consumers and fans. Such actioncouldrisktarnishingthebrand’sreputationamong its customers, thereby harming itsbusiness.thus,abrandownerwithafluidmark could find itself in the unenviableposition of choosing between allowing itsmarktobeusedandmanipulatedfreely,orsuingitsowncustomersorfans.

Confusion among ConsumersBy its nature, a fluid trademark is

constantly changing. If too many differentvariationsoftheunderlyingmarkareused,consumersmaybecomeconfusedastothesource associated with a given trademark.For example, consumers may not easilyrecognize the brand in the variant marksbecause of the additional elements addedtofluidizethemark.thus,fluidmarksmaydefeat the very purpose of branding andtrademarks, which is to build associationbetween a given mark and a known pro-ducerorserviceprovider.

Weakening of Underlying MarkBecause fluid trademarks may create

consumerconfusion,fluidmarksalsoraisethe risk of “weakening” the underlyingmark. this makes enforcement of rightsin connection with such mark more dif-ficult. See, e.g., 1 anne gilson lalonde, gilson on Trademarks§2.01[2] (MatthewBender 2013) (“‘Strong’ marks that haveahighdegreeofdistinctivenessare...pro-tectedagainst theuseof similarmarksonawiderrangeofgoodsorservicesthanare‘weak’designations thathave lessdistinc-tiveness or market recognition.”) (quotingresTaTemenT (Third) of unfair comPeTiTion§21cmt.i(1995)).therefore,theuseofafluid trademark may weaken the scope ofprotectionofboththeunderlyingmarkandvariantsofthefluidmark.

Abandonment of Underlying Markanother potential risk is abandonment.

the lanham act provides that “a markshall be deemed abandoned . . . whenthe use has been discontinued with anintent not to resume,” which intent “maybe inferred from the circumstances.” 15u.S.c. § 1127 (2006). thus, where abrand owner uses fluid trademarks to theexclusionof theoriginallyprotectedmark,there is risk that the original mark maybe subject to a finding of abandonment.

IntellectualProPertytodayFeBruary,2014 31

among other things, this would permit acompetitortohavetheoriginalmark’sreg-istrationwiththePtocancelled.See, e.g., Stromgren Supports, Inc. v. Bike Athletic Co., u.S.P.Q.2d (BnW) 1100, at *42-43(t.t.a.B.1997)(cancellingregistrationasabandonedinlightofnon-use).

tackingonemeansofavoidingabandonmentis

“tacking”thenewvariationtotheoriginalmark. this is permissible when the newvariation of the mark creates the same“commercialimpression”astheoldformofthemark.theninthcircuithasexplainedthisprinciple,noting that“[w]ithout tack-ing, a trademark owner’s priority in hismarkwouldbereducedeachtimehemadethe slightest alteration to themark,whichwould discourage him from altering themark in response to changing consumerpreferences, evolving aesthetic develop-ments, or new advertising and marketingstyles.” Brookfield Commc’ns, Inc. v. West Coast Entmt Corp., 174 F.3d 1036, 1048(9thcir.1999).

an important caveat is that tacking issubject to a relatively strict standard. amark may be tacked to the earlier use ofanothermarkonlyif“[t]hepreviouslyusedmark [is] the legal equivalentof themarkin question or indistinguishable therefromsuch that consumers consider both to bethe same mark.” Brookfield, 174 F.3d at1047-48.tackingisallowedonlyifthetwomarksaresosimilarthatconsumersgener-allyregardthemasessentiallythesame.Id. at1048.“themarksmustcreatethesame,continuingcommercialimpression,andthelatermarkshouldnotbemateriallydiffer-entfromoralterthecharacterofthemarkattemptedtobetacked.”Id.

courtshaveapplied this standard rela-tively rigidly. See, e.g., Van Dyne-Crotty, Inc. v. Wear-Guard Corp.,926F.2d1156,1159(Fed.cir.1991)(“clotHeStHatWorK. For tHe WorK you do”couldnotbe tacked to“clotHeStHatWorK”);One Indus., LLC, v. Jim O’Neal Distrib., 578 F.3d 1154, 1160 (9th cir.2009) (angular “o” mark could not betacked to the prior use of a rounded “o”markbecausetheapostropheswerediffer-ent,thelowerandupperhorizontallinesofthe rounded “o” mark were thinner thanthecorrespondinglinesontheangular“o”mark,andtherounded“o”markwasboxywhereastheangular“o”marklookedlikethe outline of a lemon); Brookfield, 174F.3dat1049(“MoVIeBuFF.coM”could

not be tacked to “tHe MoVe BuFF’SMoVIe Store” because moviebuff.comhad three fewerwords,moviebuff.comdidnot have a possessive ending, it omitteda space, and added “.com” to the end);Data Concepts, Inc. v. Digital Consulting, Inc., 150 F.3d 620, 623 (6th cir. 1998)(“dcI”and“dci”notsufficientlysimilartosupport tacking); Pro-Cuts v. Schilz-Price Enters., 27 u.S.P.Q.2d 1224 (t.t.a.B.1993)(“Pro-cutS”couldnotbetackedto“Pro-Kut”).

In light of this, brand owners may notbe able to rely on tacking to avoid aban-donment in cases where they use fluidvariations to the exclusion of the original,underlyingtrademark.

Best PractIces for Brand oWners usInG a fluId trademark

Giventherisksdiscussedabove,brandownersshouldconsiderthefollowingguide-lineswhenusingfluidtrademarks:

strong mark. Beforeadoptinga fluidmark, an owner should ensure that theunderlyingmark isstrong.thisminimizesthe riskof consumerconfusionbymakingsure the public understands a given fluidvariation as indicative of the same sourceastheunderlyingmark.

registration. the underlying markshould be registered. registration of theunderlying mark may be useful if a thirdparty infringes one of the fluid trademarkvariants. the brand owner may be able toassert infringement of the underlying mark,and the federal registration will provide apresumption of validity. In addition, to theextentresourcespermit,abrandownershouldconsider whether it makes sense to registerparticular variations of the underlying marktomaximizeprotectionoverthefluidmark.

continued use. abrandownershouldcontinuetouse theunderlyingmarkin itsoriginal formwhen adopting a fluidmark.ongoinguseofthemarkavoidstheriskofabandonment and allows the brand ownerto relyon theprioritydateof theunderly-ingmark(totheextentthevariationmaybe“tacked”ontotheunderlyingmark).

likewise, each variation comprising afluidtrademarkshouldmaintainthesource-identifyingcharacteristicsoftheunderlyingmark, such as signature colors or stylizedfont.thiswillallowconsumers to identifythesourceoftheservicesorproductswhenviewingthevariationofthemark,avoidingconsumer confusion and weakening of theoriginalmark.

additional protection.abrandownershould consider whether copyright or pat-entprotectionisavailableforanewvariantofthemark.asnotedabove,bothformsofprotectionmayapply,andarenotmutuallyexclusivetotrademarkprotection.

terms of use. a fluid trademarkshouldengageandinteractwiththepublic.However,ifabrandownerchoosestopermitfanuseandparodiesofitsfluidtrademarks,itshouldconsiderdraftingtermsofusethatcover fan use of its trademark. For exam-ple,Googlemaintainsa“rules forProperusage”webpageregardinguseofitsmark.5

through this page, Google permits use ofitsmarksonlyincertainwaysandsubjecttocertainrequirements.Forinstance,usersmust distinguish the GooGle mark fromthesurroundingtextinsomewayandmayonlyusetheGooGlemarkasanadjective(ratherthanaverbornoun).

clearance. Brand owners should con-sider conducting clearance proceduresbefore using a new variation of a fluidmark.although itmaybedifficult tocon-ductsearchesduetothefast-pacednatureof an ever-changing fluid trademark, it isprudent to conduct a trademark searchto ensure that the new variation will notinfringe another party’s trademark rights.topreventthetrademarksearchandclear-anceprocess fromholdingupanymarket-ing efforts, a good business practice forbrand owners to consider is creating andmaintainingasteadypipelineofnewtrade-markvariations.

enforcement. Brand owners shouldthinkbeforeinitiatingenforcementactions.enforcement is important to protecting atrademark,but itshouldbedonecarefullyandwithforethought.Ifabrandownerdoesdecidetosendacease-and-desistletter,itshouldbewordedverycarefully.consumersoftenpublicizeceaseanddesist lettersbyposting them on internet sites. a stronglyworded letter to a customer or fan couldtarnish a brand’s reputation among suchcustomers. IPT

endnotes1. Forinstance,timeMagazinepublishedanarticle

regarding a doodle that paid tribute to famedsocialworkerandnobelPeacePrizewinnerJaneaddamsonherbirthday.See http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/09/06/todays-google-doodle-honors-nobel-prize-winner-jane-addams/.

2. See http://www.google.com/doodles.3. See https://www.google.com/doodles/30th-anni-

versary-of-pac-man.4. Seehttp://corp.aol.com/category/our-mission/.5. See http://www.google.com/permissions/trade-

mark/rules.html.

fluid trademarks: all fun, or some risk?

Documents