Image: Shutterstock
Trademarks are something all big businesses strive for just one more means of batting the competitionAway with a, well, bat. Swatch trademarked Apples iconic “One More Thing” catchphrase a subtle dig Kit Kat has its “Have a Break” and “Just Do It” is the preserve of Nike.
Then enter Specsavers, which has recently delved into the world of intellectual property by trademarking part of its slogan we say part as it’s just one word. The use of “should’ve” and “shouldve” has been approved by the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO).
Many have been surprised that the office accepted a trademark for a single word, particularly one that’s a verb in common usage. But though arguably not as spectacular as eradicating the word should’ve from all marketing campaigns it’s not the first time a firm filed a trademark for a single word.
(1) Rond Rousey Inc
UFC fighter and actor Ronda Rousey is no stranger to the trademark process. Using her corporate entity, Ronda Rousey Inc, she registered a number of phrases. These include “F**k! Them All” and “DNB”, which stands for “Do Nothing B***h”.
The word DNB garnered much success after she used it during “UFC episode 190” before her 34-second, first-round win over Bethe Correia. She later said it described a “Do Nothing B***h,” a woman who “tries to be pretty and be taken care of by someone else.”
It’s not the only word she rushed to trademark though, with all of them having garnered success. In 2012 she gained a monopoly over the word “Rowdy” she’s known as Rowdy Ronda Rousey and laterfiled for “Armbarnation”.
(2) Twitter
Let’s just say Twitter initially won a battle but lost the war. It turns out that for the longest time Twitter wasn’t allowed to claim ownership of the word “tweet” because of an earlier claim by athird-party developer: Twittad.
This Twitter-based advertising service had already trademarked the phrase Let Your Ad Meet Tweets” in 2008, before Twitter even considered trademarking the word itself. So the social media platform went for the next best thing. It filed a trademark to claim “subtweet,” as well as”tweetstorm.”
Of course, during this time Twitter fought tooth and nail against Twittad to gain the right to use “tweet” and the two firms finally came to a conclusion in 2011 according to the Wall Street Journal.
Peculiar customer service moments that were powered by Twitter
“James Eliason, CEO of Twittad, said in an interview that Twitter would drop the lawsuit,” the article claimed. “In return, Des Moines-based Twittad would transfer its registered trademark of ‘tweet’ to Twitter. Eliason declined to say whether Twitter paid Twittad, citing a confidentiality agreement between the companies.”
(3) Facebook
The social network giant was granted a monopoly of the word “face”under certain conditions it only applies to usages in telecommunication services, namely, providing online chat rooms and electronic bulletin boards for transmission of messages among computer users in the field of general interest and concerning social and entertainment subject matter, none primarily featuring or relating to motoring or to cars.
This is specified in its user agreement, so whenever you log in you’re agreeing that your next social media company’s brand name won’t have the word “face” in it. Similarly, you’re agreeing: You will not use [its] copyrights or trademarks (including Facebook, the Facebook and F Logos, FB, Poke, Book and Wall), or any confusingly similar marks, except as expressly permitted by our Brand Usage Guidelines or with our prior written permission.
Insider interview: Facebook plans to be your de facto mobile presence
This set off red flags for many. Technically Facebook hasn’t trademarked “book” at all. Instead you’ll see the letters TM after the word, which generally limits the trademark to the company’s geographic location. The problem Facebook is a global business. It seems to have found a way to wiggle around having an official trademark registration.
Read more to find out which two companies that weren’t prepared for a resounding no from trademark offices.
By Shan Schutte</a ></em ></p >
(5) McDonald’s
The fast-food giant has had quite an uphill battle when it comes to protecting the prefix “Mc”. In the past, it emerged victorious from courtroom battles against stores like McCoffee and MacJoy. In 2009, however, McDonald’s lostAn eight-year battle with a Malaysian restaurant called McCurry, with the courts suggesting no person would confuse the two.
Don’t let McCurry’s win fool you into thinking you can readily use the prefix though. In 2013 the EU IPO challenged Singapore-based Future Enterprises registry of the name MACCOFFEE for its food and beverage products, which now inevitably allows thechain to prevent the registration of trademarks for food and beverages with the prefix Mac or Mc.
As far as the EU is concerned, by using the prefix “Mc,” McDonalds acquired its own distinctive character.
But not all firms have found success. Here are two that failed to acquire such a trademark.
Subway
The company has consistently tried to slap a trademark on its footlong sandwiches. It was met with what is now termed as “footlong-gate” and a resounding “no” by the trademark office.
The word footlong isn’t as uncommon in the food business as it thought, and it metresistance from big chains such as Pizza Hut and KFC. But the real party started whenSubway’s lawyer reportedly sent acease-and-desistletter to a general store named Sheetz, with the latter responding withA lawsuit.
Siding with the owners of Sheetz, the office explained that the word was widely used in the food and restaurant industry. The fact that the applicants business is much larger than some other establishments using ‘footlong’ in connection with 12-inch sandwiches does not establish applicants right to exclusive use of the term.
It didn’t help matters that people started realising the Subway footlong wasn’t even 12-inches long.
Much like Subway, the tech company tried to trademark a word that was arguably used quite a lot in its sector. But hoping to protect the investment it made in wearable technology, Google hoped to prevent other firms using the word “glass”.
That’s right. Google currently has a trademark for “Google Glass” ” far more understandable. However, it wants to refer to the product as simply “glass”.
Of course, it’s not the only company to use the word. In fact, Border Stylo, a company which developed an App for Chrome called “Write on Glass,” lodged a complaint. Its argument was that “glass” was merely descriptive and should be refused trademark protection.
Looking at the success of Specsavers though, Google may still have a chance.
Debunking five common SEO myths small businesses may be following
