“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” – Romeo and Juliet, Act II, Scene II
This quote from Shakespeare is prophetic from a trademark standpoint. The primary function of a trademark is to identify and distinguish the goods or services of one party from those of other parties. But before you can get to the point of identifying and distinguishing your client’s goods or services from the competition, a trademark must be created. It has been our experience that most clients like to choose something sweet – something mellow so that the buying public has a good feeling about the product, which in theory helps the public associate the goods with the trademark and believe that those goods come from a particular source (i.e., the company).
This method of choosing a trademark is not always the rule, however. There are a number of trademarks that have been chosen based on product formulation failures. Would you choose a “failure” for a trademark? OK, this is actually a little bit of overdramatization, but it is true that a number of well-known trademarks reflect product development failures. In fact, some of these trademarks are household names that identify very successful products.
409
We suspect that many of you if not all have used this product. 409 is a household cleaner that comes from a particular source. The story on how this cleaning product obtained its name (which in part is probably myth) is that it was the 409th attempt to create the ideal cleaning formula. This implies that there were 408 previous attempts. So why was this particular trademark chosen? One speculation is that the “409” designation evoked a sense of scientific rigor and industrial strength, regardless of whether there were truly 408 prior versions. This myth has been exploited very successfully in marketing this product.
WD-40
Another well-known trademark which includes a number is WD-40. Today it is a lubricant. According to the WD-40 Company’s official history, in 1993 a can of WD-40 was found in four out of five American households. First, the “WD” portion of the trademark stands for the words “water displacement.” The product was developed in 1953 by Norm Larsen of the Rocket Chemical Company for a ballistic missile project funded by the U.S. Air Force. Its purpose was to prevent rust and corrosion on the missile’s outer skin and components by displacing water—hence the name: “Water Displacement.” The “40” portion of the trademark stands for the 40th attempt to formulate this water-displacing compound. Were the first 39 formulations failures? That depends on your point of view. Earlier formulations were probably steps in product development, which is quite normal in the chemical product development process. The point here is that choosing a trademark does not have to be sweet nor mellow.
Chanel No. 5
Why does Chanel No. 5 reference the number 5? Released in 1921, It was not the case of the fifth formulation being chosen because the previous four were unacceptable to the general public. The scent of Chanel No. 5 was supposedly the fifth formulation presented to Coco Chanel by perfumer Ernest Beaux. Coco favored the fifth scent, and it became the first perfume under the Chanel brand.
R2-D2
R2-D2 is not a product and is not merely a number serving as a trademark but is an interesting case nevertheless of how a name which eventually became a trademark was chosen. The name of the famous Star Wars droid R2-D2 comes from film editing shorthand. While working on the movie American Graffiti, George Lucas’ sound editor called for “R2- D2” (abbreviated from Reel 2, Dialogue 2), and Lucas liked it so much that he used it in his future film. Eventual merchandise based on the film uses R2-D2 as a trademark.
What it comes to choosing a trademark, it doesn’t have to be something sweet nor something mellow as long as you can sink your teeth in it like Jello. (credit to Brickyard Blues by Three Dog Night)
The post Failures as a Brand Basis appeared first on Attorney at Law Magazine.