When Rebranding Means More Than Changing Names
Coach's recent decision to change its name to Tapestry Inc. is one of many common moves by companies hoping to refresh their images in a rapidly-evolving…
November 01, 2017 at 11:02 AM
3 minute read
Coach's recent decision to change its name to Tapestry Inc. is one of many common moves by companies hoping to refresh their images in a rapidly-evolving retail sector. While the decision is a first step in a novel marketing strategy, it impacts the whole intellectual property portfolio of a company, which can be especially expansive and complex for those doing business globally.
Mayer Brown attorney Michael Adams, co-leader of the Global Brand Management & Internet Practice, sat down with Inside Counsel to discuss the legal implications of Coach's rebranding decision. He has unique insight on how brands are managed strategically and shared with us how name changes are conducted and what they mean for the company.
While there are many possible reasons for Coach to change its name to Tapestry, Adams believe that it did so to reflect the company's expanding portfolio of product lines (Kate Spade and Stuart Weitzman). As Coach acquires and looks to acquire more brands, it wanted to create an umbrella company not tied to a specific trademark, such as Coach. The likely reason for this is that Tapestry will include both lower-end and higher-end product lines in its portfolio.
“As a trademark is a signal to consumers regarding the quality of a product, is important for brand owners to maintain consistent quality under a specific mark,” he explained. “As more price conscious products enter the product line, Coach did not want to dilute the strong association of Coach to high-end, luxury items.”
In addition to registering its business name, Coach will need to either assign or update the ownership information associated with all its global trademarks to reflect the new ownership, per Adams. This is often an expensive project due to the high number of jurisdictions and assets likely at issue.
“Creating an umbrella company for brands that have a range of quality helps protect the brands known for high-quality from degradation by those brands owned by the company that do not have as high of a reputation for quality,” he said. “In short, it is a way to exercise quality control between various brands under common ownership.”
So, how does this type of decision impact the whole IP portfolio of a company?
Tapestry will need to enact a strategy to update its numerous global trademark records, which can represent a significant cost, which can either be borne up front or in a measured way over the period of about 10 years. Under either approach, costs will be significant; it's really a matter of how the company wants to integrate those costs. In addition, the strategy of an IP Holding Company is one employed by numerous large companies and allows for ownership of all IP under a common umbrella while lowering risks of trademark degradation. Tapestry will also need to execute the proper inter-company licenses to allow for business use of the marks.
“The difficulty for a large international business comes in selecting the new name,” he explained. “It is very challenging to identify a name that is free and clear for use on a global scale. Once this is accomplished, the company will need to begin updating or assigning its trademarks to the new company, draft intercompany and other required licenses for the use of the brands as they are now owned by a different entity, and ensure that each of its local operations follows proper trademark procedures so that any new IP rights are acquired by the HoldCo, Tapestry, instead of a particular business line.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllGC With Deep GM Experience Takes Legal Reins of Power Management Giant
2 minute readUS Reviewer of Foreign Transactions Sees More Political, Policy Influence, Say Observers
'Unlawful Release'?: Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit
3 minute readEx-Red Robin CLO Joins Norton Rose Fulbright After Helping Sell Latest Employer for $4.9 Billion
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250