Azrights

In the most recent episode of the Facebook usernames-for-companies saga the organisation has reduced the eligibility requirements to 25 fans.  In our previous discussion of Facebook usernames we noted with interest the volatile minimum number of fans requirement, which initially stood at 1000, was reduced to 25, and later increased to 100.  The return to a more modest requirement makes it possible for scores of niche businesses to beautify their Page URLs without having to resort to shady tactics like buying Facebook fans, but there is no telling how long before the requirement changes again, so grab your username while you can!

The Azrights Facebook page is now available at the user friendly URL: www.facebook.com/Azrights.

Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre

Head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, Jim Gamble, is not convinced as the main social networking sites lag behind in providing sufficient security for our teens against the occurrence of cyber-bullying (please see statistics at the end of the BBC article on this topic) or paedophiles . Mr Gamble has suggested the integration of an accessible ‘report abuse’ button into these sites so that children are only a step away from 24 hour help. Luckily Bebo, which is the main site for social networking, used by teenagers, has now agreed to fall into line and ensure security with such a button. However, implementing the button seems to be causing some technical problems at the moment. It seems that the position of Facebook is to learn “from Bebo’s experience of using the CEOP button”. Myspace, has its own ‘report abuse’ button but is not as prominently placed on their pages compared with the CEOP button. Although some social networking sites are concerned about losing advertising space it is a vital opportunity for them to set the trend and champion the rights of their main users.

Crocs

Fashionista-at-law reports the trade mark action brought against Crocs by Porsche over use of the name CAYMAN, which is one of Crocs’ best selling brands.

The dispute arises because Porsche has a European Community Trade Mark for CAYMAN which among other things includes footwear as a classification.   The relevant descriptions are:

Class 18:
Leather and imitations of leather, and goods made of these materials, as far as included in this class, particularly trunks, bags, small articles of leatherware; umbrellas, parasols.

Class 25:
Clothing, footwear, headgear, gloves and belts.

The trade mark was registered on  30 August 2005, so may not be open to attack on the grounds of non use.

Judging by the first three blog posts that I came across when searching for “crocs trade mark infringement” , such as here; here and here it is not widely appreciated that this is the reason it is so important to search a name on the trade mark registers before using it.  Doing google research is not enough, because it is possible to register a trade mark for a category of goods or services, and reserve that name for future use for up to 5 years.

What is more if your plans to use the name are delayed for more than 5 years, it is possible to avoid losing your rights to the name, by simply filing a fresh trade mark application.

Arguably, Crocs will benefit from the free publicity generated by the case.  It will raise brand awareness.  Did you even know that one of Crocs lines of footwear is called CAYMAN?  Now you do.  So even if they end up having to cease using the name Crocs will derive benefit from the action.  It doesn’t do them any harm that the reporting of the case seems to be focusing on how dissimilar Crocs shoes are to the Porsche, when really that is not what this case is about.

In his comment to my blog post ‘New Rules of Brand Protection’ Terry immediately questioned the tentative title I  gave my proposed book.  He suggested ‘protecting brands’ might be somewhat limiting and wondered whether a title like ‘new methods of branding’ might be more likely to trigger engagement from others. One of my principal aims in writing this book is precisely to highlight that Web 2.0 has changed the rules of brand protection so that it is inappropriate to regard brand protection and brand promotion as separate activities.  If the title ‘New Ways of Brand Protection’ is not going to convey this, and people are not even going to look at the blog releases of my book then I think it a good idea to immediately change the title of the book to something more descriptive of its contents.  It is going to cover brand promotion and cultivation, so how about ‘Why Web 2.0 Brand Protection Requires Online Brand Promotion’.  That is now the tentative new title.

This week I am starting the book by releasing what will be chapter 1, or its introduction – How Web 2.0 Changes the Rules of Brand Protection, and Brand Promotion. I have already written a rough draft of next week’s chapter which will be all about Brand Names. That chapter explains why it matters that businesses choose names carefully with brand protection and promotion in mind.  It will be called Brands: Names, Trade Marks, and Domain Names.

See this week’s chapter How Web 2.0 Changes the Rules of Brand Protection, and Brand Promotion and please help shape this book by leaving me your comments here on the blog email me if you prefer.

Pondering whether to progress my book writing project by self publishing, or finding a traditional publisher, I came across Seth Godin’s Advice for Authors.  Sound advice indeed.  After further surfing and reading I gained more insight into the book writing business, and the upshot is that I have decided to write my book by blogging it gradually.  It is tentatively titled “The New Rules of Brand Protection”

The choice of title is inspired by David Meerman Scott’s book “The New Rules of Marketing and PR“.  As I read David’s book the thought popped into my head that actually the internet is changing the rules in all industries.  Marketing and PR are just one example of an industry undergoing transformation.

It reminded me of my blog piece back in March on the Impact of the Social Web where I mentioned how entire industries - such as print media - are having to rethink their business models.

David’s book helped me to formulate my views.  I realised that what my book is really about is how the new world order is transforming the old approach to brand protection.  Advertising and the old ways of promoting brands are under challenge.  Many businesses are realising that promoting a brand exclusively on mainstream media to tell the brand story - the ‘broadcasting TV advertising’ approach - does not work on the web. Yet the web is too important a medium to ignore in cultivating a brand.

Given that the way in which brands are promoted is changing so fundamentally, it is hardly surprising that brand protection is also in need of rethinking.

In my article here I discussed how the use of web 2.0 technologies which have enabled ordinary citizens to post content online is what has driven this revolution. Every one of us needs to be alert to what is being said about us and our businesses on the web.

As I write sections of my book, I invite other lawyers, brand owners, writers, bloggers, interested individuals, anyone to follow along, and to contribute to the process.

Please offer your suggestions, let me know if you think I am off track, and help me by contributing your thoughts. I hope the book will take no longer than 6 months to write, but given my over optimistic tendencies, it is safer to assume it will take a year.   Next week I will publish an ebook on it.