Louboutin Fights for their Sole

Recently a New York judge denied a request from Christian Louboutin to legally prevent other brands, specifically fellow French competitor Yves Saint Laurent, from using the color red on the soles of their shoes. Louboutin argues that the red lacquered soles of their shoes are a feature of their trademark, which was granted in 2008 by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero ruled that Louboutin would unlikely be able to defend an "overly broad" trademark using an analogy that Picasso wouldn't have been able to legally prevent Monet from using a particular hue of indigo. Judge Marrero believes that granting Louboutin exclusive use of the color red would hinder manufacturers of other items. "Awarding one participant in the designer shoe market a monopoly on the color red would impermissibly hinder competition among other participants," Marrero wrote. "Louboutin's claim would cast a red cloud over the whole industry, cramping what other designers do, while allowing Louboutin to paint with a full palette." 


This man obviously has no idea what the red sole means to the Louboutin brand. They are not trying to own the color red in shoe design. It's how the red is used in the design of the shoe. People know it's a Louboutin from across the room when they see the red sole. Similar to a brand logo or mark, the red sole says Louboutin. That's the definition of a distinctive brand and a successful mark. 


I am not a trademark lawyer or even know the specifics behind trademark law. I do know that when I'm dealing with naming a new company or product, the number one rule to remember when it comes to possible trademark infringement is that you can not create customer confusion in the same market. I have to believe that rule would be the same in this situation. If Yves Saint Laurent starts designing shoes with red soles, customers previously knowledgeable about Louboutin's identifiable red soles would be confused about the brand of the shoe. ***Side note: don't even get me started on the idea that an established brand with such a long history in fashion would even want to do this or any brand unless they are planning on selling the shoes off blankets on city streets and allies***


UPS legally owns the color brown when it comes to its trucks. They've been legally granted this right as an extension of their trademark. Isn't this the EXACT same situation? Adidas owns their three stripes. I think this is an even harder argument. How can you own something so universally used in design as a series of stripes? Well they do. So how can a judge deny Louboutin the right to protect their red soles? I really don't know other than he's not the least bit familiar with the fashion industry and how the red sole truly represents the Louboutin brand. If I were him, I'd grant Louboutin the exclusive rights to a specific color of red sole and encourage Yves Saint Laurent to use a different color or go crazy and design stripes on their soles...unless they use three stripes, because that would be illegal. 

Can Discrimination be Brand Appropriate?

Chick-fil-A is taking a lot of heat for their much publicized support of several same-sex marriage opposition groups. They have reportedly provided more than $1.1 million to organizations that oppose gay marriage and other pro-LGBT issues. Many are calling these organizations "hate groups" and are calling for boycotts on all Chick-fil-A restaurants along with scattered on-site protests. Chick-fil-A has responded by saying the company "has no agenda against anyone". Dan Cathy, president of Chick-fil-A, has stated "while my family and I believe in the Biblical definition of marriage, we love and respect anyone who disagrees". Politically correct PR responses, but definitely not enough to refute the stance the significant donations overtly suggest. I would like to discuss whether or not such actions are brand appropriate.

Chick-fil-A has a long history with religion. Since opening their first restaurant in 1946, Chick-fil-A restaurants have been closed on Sundays. Their website explains that founder Truett Cathy "believes that all franchised Chick-fil-A Operators and their Restaurant employees should have an opportunity to rest, spend time with family and friends, and worship if they choose to do so". His decision has been said to be "as much practical as spiritual" and part of their "recipe for success". Making a religious statement like this for 65 years sends a strong message to any consumer that this is a religion-based brand.

Consumers have the right to shop or not shop any particular business based on their personal relationship with that brand. Conversely, a privately owned company has every right to target any particular audience they want to connect and do business with. If Chick-fil-A is perfectly ok with losing business by alienating a demographic such as the LGBT community, then they can spend their money and support any organization they choose. Do I think this is discrimination? Absolutely. Do I think it's a smart business practice? No. You're not maximizing your sales potential by openly opposing a large demographic and their supporters. And finally, is it brand appropriate? For Chick-fil-A, yes it is. This anti-LGBT stance falls in line with the brand this company was founded on and stays consistent with the types of messaging their avid followers have been receiving for decades.

Unfortunately, it's really no different than the much publicized legal troubles Abercrombie & Fitch consistently faces with their hiring processes. They believe their brand requires only beautiful people in their stores...at any cost. This too is discrimination. This too is brand appropriate for A&F. The good news is the power is with the consumers. We too can discriminate and send very strong messages on what we're willing to tolerate by where we spend our money. Choose wisely or you may be communicating to the world that discrimination is ok.

Design of New Apple Headquarters is On Brand

I have a confession. I love Apple. I'm sure this is not that big of a surprise coming from a creative brand strategist who has worked with Apple in the past. I was really hoping to never do a Brand Marbles blog entry on Apple. I feel like it's too easy. In my opinion, they've been leading the world in branding for quite some time with their products, packaging, retail and marketing. Last month Apple was named the world's most valuable brand by the annual BrandZ study of the top 100 brands worth an estimated 153 billion dollars. So, what has Apple done to make me change my mind and write this post? They released the designs for their new corporate headquarters in Cupertino, CA.

Apple shows the world how every aspect of your company needs to be on brand. How the architecture of their new offices should not only aesthetically look like their brand, but should be a beacon for all their brand values. I'd now like to discuss some of the Apple brand values being communicated through the design of their new headquarters.

1. Reliable - Apple has been located in Cupertino since 1976. They could have built their new headquarters anywhere. They decided to buy the land where HP had offices, but was vacating because of downsizing. Apple wanted to stay in the community that has supported them from the beginning. 

2. Innovative - This one can be tricky when it comes to architecture. How do you design something that will still look innovative decades in the future? Make it look like an UFO. You can't have innovative products coming out of a building that looks like it houses a bunch of cubicles and fluorescent lights. Who will argue innovation when this building looks like it's about ready to lift off at night and buzz over the Arizona desert. 

3. Simple - There will be only one building. A glass circular structure that will house 12,000 employees. The building will only take up 20% of the land with the other 80% being landscaped. Parking will be built underground to maintain a very beautiful, park-like setting.

I'm aware it takes money to maintain a consistent brand through every company decision. And that Apple is an extreme example of consistent branding. But it's important to have benchmarks that show companies from any industry how branding is much more than just a company name and logo. You can send messages to your consumers in a number of ways. If you're going to spend millions of dollars to build a new corporate headquarters, then you might as well get some free marketing out it. I guarantee every person who drives by this building will receive a clear message just what Apple is all about. 

Brand Advice for Lance Armstrong: "Come Clean"

I tend to believe where there is smoke, there is indeed fire. For example, Arnold Schwarzenegger has been said to have been a womanizer for years. Are we all that surprised he had an affair and consequently a love child? Similarly, we've listened to accusations against  Lance Armstrong regarding his use of performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) for quite some time. No matter how fast he is on his bike, the reality is he will not be able to outrun these accusations forever. The truth will eventually come out and each week the case against him grows stronger and stronger. Even his own teammates are starting to talk about how they witnessed him using PEDs. I know there is pride at stake. I know there are 7 Tour de France victories. And most importantly, there is the Livestrong brand that could be tarnished. Or not, depending on how Lance and his team decide to handle things. It's the Livestrong brand that can ultimately save Lance Armstrong from public ruin. Here's my advice.

Step 1. Swallow your pride and step aside. You messed up and it's now time to make this less about Lance Armstrong the cyclist and more about Lance Armstrong the philanthropist.

Step 2. Come clean. Craft a story around why you used PEDs. There are tons of directions you can take here. For example, you just overcame cancer. Cycling was your passion and you realized you could use it as your platform to raise awareness about cancer. You needed the extra help to be competitive and strong again. You weren't intending on using PEDs long. YOU MADE A MISTAKE. Keep it short. Don't point any fingers anywhere else. Move on.

Step 3. Build Livestrong brand awareness. Remind people how Livestrong was created to improve the lives of people affected by cancer. In addition to cancer related programs, Livestrong inspires all people to eat healthy and get fit. Stress how the Lance Armstrong Foundation has raised over 400 million dollars for the fight against cancer.

I believe if Lance were to be honest and follow these three steps, he'd be able to salvage the good he's already built through his foundation and the Livestrong brand. In time, he may even be able to rebuild his personal brand. If he continues to deny the accusations and they eventually find him guilty of using PEDs, he will not only damage his personal brand, but could take the Livestrong brand down with him. People won't trust him as a person and as a result, may not trust him with their charitable donations. In the end, everyone would lose. Come clean, focus everyone back on the good and let the healing begin.

HP Peddles Hate (H8)

To this point, Brand Marbles has only been posting on the positive side of the world of branding. Today, HP wins the distinction of being my first negative post. HP recently announced the launch of their "most powerful" line of PCs yet - the HP Pavilion HPE H8. Really? H8? Hate? Trust me when I say naming is one of the most difficult exercises in all of branding. It's extremely subjective and really hard to find names that are unique, available and ownable in the consumers' mindset. Sometimes, negative reactions to a name can payoff in the long run by gaining so much press at launch it drives consumers to take notice (ie. Nintendo Wii, Apple iPad). But there is a difference between not understanding or liking a particular name and putting a name out there that visibly suggests something as negative as the word "hate". You could even argue HP is out to "HYPE HATE" with their "HPE H8". Names are a direct extension of a company's brand and arguably, with a logo, the most visible. I doubt one of HP's brand attributes is hate. Now do I honestly believe this name will detract buyers from purchasing a H8 computer? No. But if for some reason this product does not perform up to consumers' or the industry's expectations, it will feed detractors plenty of fodder for brand bashing. I can see potential headlines now. "Consumers Hate H8." ***Feel free to post your own creative headlines below*** HP better hope the H8 outperforms expectations or they'll be left standing on the playground with no marbles.

Maytag Repairman Gets Even More Bored

Maytag recently announced they are launching a new ad campaign that will limit the role of their long standing brand champion, The Maytag Repairman. For over 100 years the man in the blue uniform had nothing to do because of the reliability of Maytag machines. The new campaign, entitled "What's Inside Matters", is going to focus more on the consumer's everyday lifestyle and their specific laundry needs. The repairman will make a cameo appearance to maintain a connection to the brand history, but will not be the focus of the new ads.

I was asked by a friend what my thoughts were on this strategy. If evolving such an identifiable brand figure is a good or bad thing? Of course, only time will tell if this is a good brand strategy, but my gut tells me Maytag is trying to maintain some relevancy in a constantly shifting consumer mindset. No matter the history a company may have with a brand figure, if it's not serving the type of awareness needed to drive consumer reaction then it's time for adjustments. I have a feeling they believe the repairman is not as important to their consumers as he used to be. That the message of reliability is not enough of a brand message by itself. There comes a time when a specific brand message becomes the norm in the marketplace. I call these messages brand mandatories. Reliability is a given in the industry and no longer a differentiator. To continue to hang your hat on that single message would eventually result in a loss of market share because the industry has moved on to newer messages that are now more important to the consumer.

I was recently involved in the purchase of a new washing machine and dryer. I was shocked to see what these machines now do. They talk to each other. They have more settings than a jewelry store. When the bells and whistles start piling up, it's more about what they do than just the fact that they work on a daily basis. I believe Maytag is handling this perfectly. They are not completely doing away with what their brand stands for - reliability in the form of a bored repairman. He's still there, but they are shifting their messaging to things that make that reliability relevant in today's marketplace. They're smart to keep him around, because if their gamble is wrong his limited role can be increased again.

Hyundai Gets Emotional

I have to admit, I am not always a fan of advertisements in the car industry. You see the same stuff over and over again. Cars driving at 100 mph through the desert. Attempts at car dealership humor. And the always popular long picturesque drive. Over the last few years, I've started to really take notice of Hyundai's marketing campaigns and for good reason. They are delivering emotional benefits in a time of uncertainty and it's really starting to payoff.

My approach to branding has always included building a brand based on multiple attributes. All geared towards connecting with a consumer on multiple levels. One of the most important attributes for any brand is the emotional benefit the brand provides the consumer. No matter who the company is and what the product or service they provide there needs to be a well defined emotional benefit. This is a hard sell in some industries. Especially when it involves technology. I can't tell you how many times I've had to ask a room full of technology executives the question "where is the emotion?". It's an easy thing to forget, but it's extremely important to the success of a brand to let the consumer know how you care about them.

Hyundai Assurance delivers trunk loads of brand emotional benefits to their consumers. It started with the groundbreaking, recession proof offer: "Finance or lease any new Hyundai, and if in the next year you lose your income, we'll let you return it." Now it's transformed into a Trade-In Value Guarantee. A program that future-proofs the value of your new Hyundai by guaranteeing today exactly how much it will be worth two, three, or four years from now. Both let the consumer know that it's safe to spend money on a Hyundai. Even in these uncertain times.

The emotional benefit is paying off. Hyundai attracted 538,228 new customers in 2010, which was a 24% increase from the year before (*Hyundai in the News, March 2, 2011). This is a significant growth while other car manufacturer's are struggling. It also helps that they are starting to deliver on style, safety, performance and eco-friendliness. They truly are delivering on their tagline "New Thinking. New Possibilities." which obviously equals new customers. Goes to show, business IS personal and Hyundai is out making a lot of new friends.