IP: Brand protection and expansion, Part 3
This is the third of a six-part series exploring how companies can grow the value in their brands by leveraging and protecting their intellectual property.
June 11, 2013 at 06:28 AM
8 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
This is the third of a six-part series exploring how companies can grow the value in their brands by leveraging and protecting their intellectual property. (See the first two columns in this series: Part 1 and Part 2.)
In today's article, we will discuss how companies can expand and enhance the reputation of their brands—and generate additional revenue—through trademark licensing. Trademark licensing is the practice by which a trademark owner permits a third party to use its trademark, and the third party's use of the mark inures to the benefit of the trademark owner. Notably, a trademark license differs from a franchise agreement, in which use of a mark is permitted as part of a business system prescribed by the franchisor.
Trademark licensing can help leverage the manufacturing, marketing, and distribution acumen and resources of third-party licensees to augment the goodwill of the licensor and its brands. The driving force behind the value and profit of many brands today, revenue derived from global trademark licensing continues to climb at a dizzying pace. It is estimated that global retail sales of licensed products accounts for more than $200 billion annually.
Savvy trademark license programs extend brand awareness to new product/service categories that may not be feasible for a company to enter on its own. Brand licensing also enables brands to more quickly penetrate new geographic markets while easing the burdens and liability posed by regulatory requirements and manufacturing responsibilities, and diminishing challenges posed by cultural barriers.
While many top trademark licensors, such as Disney, are in the entertainment field and involve character licensing, many successful licensing programs are based on corporate, fashion, sports, and collegiate brands. One example of a terrific corporate licensing program is Caterpillar's foray into apparel and consumer products. Building on the success and reputation of its iconic brand for heavy machinery, Caterpillar has launched a profitable worldwide program involving the sale of licensed footwear, clothing, hats, watches, toys, and other consumer products.
While the rewards to a successful licensing campaign can be great, such arrangements must be entered into with careful consideration. Licensing opportunities must be evaluated in the context of overall marketing strategy and, on the legal side, care taken to properly establish the relationship between the parties. Improperly drafted agreements or mismanaged licensing programs may result in loss of control over the brand and/or damage to the company's reputation.
One of the primary functions of a trademark is to communicate to consumers the source of a product and, by extension, that products or services emanating from that source are of a quality consistent with the other offerings emanating from a certain source. Thus, trademark owners exercising appropriate control over the quality of the goods/services offered by the licensee ensure that the mark continues to represent the quality that consumers have come to associate with the mark. Without adequate quality control provisions—and meaningful follow-through—the license agreement may be construed by a court to be a “naked license” in which the licensor is found to have abandoned the rights to its mark.
On the flip-side, where a licensor maintains an extreme degree of control or involvement in the design, marketing, and distribution of a product, licensing could potentially expose the licensor to product liability actions for defective or harmful products. Too high a degree of control might expose the licensor to patent infringement liability and antitrust violations. Thus, controlling the quality of licensed products in order to avoid loss of trademark rights, and balancing that control in order to avoid exposing the business to risks properly borne by the licensor are imperative.
Technological innovations coupled with increased globalization will continue to provide businesses with exciting opportunities to expand the reach of their brands via different geographic markets, customer demographics, and distribution channels. As business and brands become more globalized, licensing undoubtedly becomes an even more important strategy for maintaining and enhancing brand value and increasing revenue. While there are many upsides to trademark licensing arrangements, businesses need to enter into such agreements with a clear idea of both the goal of the relationship and the strategy to be used to achieve that goal. With careful drafting—using specific language to delineate the obligations and parameters of the relationship—trademark licensing becomes a valuable tool to enhance a company's bottom line.
This is the third of a six-part series exploring how companies can grow the value in their brands by leveraging and protecting their intellectual property. (See the first two columns in this series: Part 1 and Part 2.)
In today's article, we will discuss how companies can expand and enhance the reputation of their brands—and generate additional revenue—through trademark licensing. Trademark licensing is the practice by which a trademark owner permits a third party to use its trademark, and the third party's use of the mark inures to the benefit of the trademark owner. Notably, a trademark license differs from a franchise agreement, in which use of a mark is permitted as part of a business system prescribed by the franchisor.
Trademark licensing can help leverage the manufacturing, marketing, and distribution acumen and resources of third-party licensees to augment the goodwill of the licensor and its brands. The driving force behind the value and profit of many brands today, revenue derived from global trademark licensing continues to climb at a dizzying pace. It is estimated that global retail sales of licensed products accounts for more than $200 billion annually.
Savvy trademark license programs extend brand awareness to new product/service categories that may not be feasible for a company to enter on its own. Brand licensing also enables brands to more quickly penetrate new geographic markets while easing the burdens and liability posed by regulatory requirements and manufacturing responsibilities, and diminishing challenges posed by cultural barriers.
While many top trademark licensors, such as Disney, are in the entertainment field and involve character licensing, many successful licensing programs are based on corporate, fashion, sports, and collegiate brands. One example of a terrific corporate licensing program is
While the rewards to a successful licensing campaign can be great, such arrangements must be entered into with careful consideration. Licensing opportunities must be evaluated in the context of overall marketing strategy and, on the legal side, care taken to properly establish the relationship between the parties. Improperly drafted agreements or mismanaged licensing programs may result in loss of control over the brand and/or damage to the company's reputation.
One of the primary functions of a trademark is to communicate to consumers the source of a product and, by extension, that products or services emanating from that source are of a quality consistent with the other offerings emanating from a certain source. Thus, trademark owners exercising appropriate control over the quality of the goods/services offered by the licensee ensure that the mark continues to represent the quality that consumers have come to associate with the mark. Without adequate quality control provisions—and meaningful follow-through—the license agreement may be construed by a court to be a “naked license” in which the licensor is found to have abandoned the rights to its mark.
On the flip-side, where a licensor maintains an extreme degree of control or involvement in the design, marketing, and distribution of a product, licensing could potentially expose the licensor to product liability actions for defective or harmful products. Too high a degree of control might expose the licensor to patent infringement liability and antitrust violations. Thus, controlling the quality of licensed products in order to avoid loss of trademark rights, and balancing that control in order to avoid exposing the business to risks properly borne by the licensor are imperative.
Technological innovations coupled with increased globalization will continue to provide businesses with exciting opportunities to expand the reach of their brands via different geographic markets, customer demographics, and distribution channels. As business and brands become more globalized, licensing undoubtedly becomes an even more important strategy for maintaining and enhancing brand value and increasing revenue. While there are many upsides to trademark licensing arrangements, businesses need to enter into such agreements with a clear idea of both the goal of the relationship and the strategy to be used to achieve that goal. With careful drafting—using specific language to delineate the obligations and parameters of the relationship—trademark licensing becomes a valuable tool to enhance a company's bottom 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
© 2025 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 AllCrypto Industry Eyes Legislation to Clarify Regulatory Framework
SEC Official Hints at More Restraint With Industry Bars, Less With Wells Meetings
4 minute readTrump Fires EEOC Commissioners, Kneecapping Democrat-Controlled Civil Rights Agency
Trending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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