When I see that a mark like THRŌ is registered:
for goods that include, you know, throws – I get all kinds of irritated. The owner has to disclaim the term “throw” apart from the mark as shown – so what do they get? The ability to use the word with the diacritical mark? Against whom could you possibly enforce the registration? WHY BOTHER SPENDING THE MONEY? FFS, the mark is THRŌ for a throw, it’s right there on the hangtag?
Herein my rant for the day.
When I saw this brand featured at Costco,
I could think of only one thing:
I see from their website that the Ruprecht Company has an old and storied history. It’s just unfortunate that at least for Steve Martin fans, the Ruprecht name is now irretrievably tied to this superb performance.
That’s right, PSSSST! dry spray-on shampoo. A revelation 40+ years or so ago and a product that probably started returning to the market about five years ago (I’m guessing – I suddenly started getting it in my Birchbox shipments). Yes, I can remember what it smelled like, but no, I cannot remember any commercials or catchy jingles. And what a great onomatopoeic trademark!
I’m pretty much worn out with all the CRAVE marks and variants out there, and their underlying suggestion that we’re all desperately trying to maintain healthful diets but are nonetheless captive to insatiable cravings that possess us and impel us to reach for something naughty.
But for dog’s sake, if you’re going to go the crave route, could you at least get the informal gerund correct?
CRAVE’N? Not “cravin'”? I despair.
For your consideration:
and now this:
It’s a veritable law school exam of infringement issues!
My mom was an indifferent lunch maker when we were kids, but I suspect she had a secret thing for these, because they were the processed snack food most likely to show up in our lunchboxes:
I love everything about Ding Dongs – the flavor, the texture, the name, and the zany font that appears on the packaging. Not as romantic a trigger as madeleines, but I cherish the memory nonetheless.
Are you just asking to be sued?
Yes, I’ve been remiss. And each time I scroll through my iPhone to find a photo, I come across photos I’ve taken expressly for the purpose of blogging them. So here comes a new feature to showcase my photographic impulses.
The name is – [chef’s kiss] – just wonderful. The mark is even registered. However, a bit of a wrinkle there: the registration covers this stylization:
The owner filed its section 8 declaration using a photo of the product as it appears in my photo above. Is this the same commercial appearance? But the PTO accepted it. But this raises my eternal question of why don’t people simply file for the word mark rather than a stylization that they might change five years down the road?