IP: Protect and expand your brand with co-branding partnerships
In today's article, we will discuss co-branding arrangements, which involve associating a single product or service with more than one brand name or principal producer.
June 25, 2013 at 05:15 AM
7 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
This is the fourth of a six-part series exploring how companies can grow the value in their brands by leveraging and protecting their intellectual property. Read parts one, two and three.
In today's article, we will discuss co-branding arrangements, which involve associating a single product or service with more than one brand name or principal producer. Co-branding is ubiquitous in today's marketplace, and can involve arrangements between all different types of partners.
Some arrangements involve brands directed to the same consumers – such as co-branded Disney Croc shoes, which feature Mickey Mouse-shaped holes, and Hello Kitty Band-Aids. Ingredient co-branding, such as Kellogg Pop-Tarts with Smucker's fruit filling, creates brand equity for materials, components or parts that are contained within other products. Sponsorship co-branding involves a more commercial brand providing financial support to another entity, such as a non-profit or sports team, in return for marketing exposure.
Co-branding can also take place within an organization, such as Kraft Lunchables with Oscar Mayer lunch meats, or the locations where Yum! brands Pizza Hut and Taco Bell restaurants share facilities and even employees.
Co-branding can also help combine the different perceived properties associated with the two brands, to extend the reach of both brands into new markets. In some cases, this can involve the introduction of a new product via an arrangement with an older, more established brand. If done well, such an arrangement can help expand the reputation and market share of both parties. A textbook example of this type of initiative done successfully is the now-legendary “Intel Inside” campaign, which launched a brand that few consumers had ever heard of by marketing it in connection with some of the biggest computer manufacturers, such as IBM and Compaq. Within a year of the program's launch, Intel was co-branding with hundreds of computer manufacturers.
In all cases, the goal of co-branding arrangements is to combine the strength of the two brands in order to increase the cache of the shared product, and make the product or service more resistant to copying by third parties. In many cases, the co-branded product can also be sold at a premium, such as Ford's Eddie Bauer Explorer and Subaru's Limited Edition LL Bean Outback SUVs. When considering co-branding opportunities, think creatively about products or services that complement your brand, and that will enhance the appeal or credibility of your offering.
Although there are many benefits to co-branding, as with any arrangement that could impact the value and reputation of your brand, these agreements need to be entered into with caution. Ahead of exploring any co-branding opportunities, companies should develop their own branding guidelines that will allow them to objectively assess opportunities as they arise. Factors to consider include
- The reputation of the potential partner brand
- Current market position of the companies vis-à-vis one another
- The degree of control over use of the brand
- Financial strength of the potential partner
- The marketing opportunity presented by the arrangement
Instituting guidelines ahead of evaluating any marketing opportunities can help make the process more objective. Companies should also avoid the overuse of co-branding, which could dilute the effectiveness of the programs.
Finally, keep in mind that the best co-branding efforts match companies with similar core values and corporate philosophies. When entered into strategically, co-branding can help build equity in your brand by enhancing reputations by association, helping solidify market position and differentiating offerings from those of competitors.
This is the fourth of a six-part series exploring how companies can grow the value in their brands by leveraging and protecting their intellectual property. Read parts one, two and three.
In today's article, we will discuss co-branding arrangements, which involve associating a single product or service with more than one brand name or principal producer. Co-branding is ubiquitous in today's marketplace, and can involve arrangements between all different types of partners.
Some arrangements involve brands directed to the same consumers – such as co-branded Disney Croc shoes, which feature Mickey Mouse-shaped holes, and Hello Kitty Band-Aids. Ingredient co-branding, such as Kellogg Pop-Tarts with Smucker's fruit filling, creates brand equity for materials, components or parts that are contained within other products. Sponsorship co-branding involves a more commercial brand providing financial support to another entity, such as a non-profit or sports team, in return for marketing exposure.
Co-branding can also take place within an organization, such as Kraft Lunchables with Oscar Mayer lunch meats, or the locations where Yum! brands Pizza Hut and
Co-branding can also help combine the different perceived properties associated with the two brands, to extend the reach of both brands into new markets. In some cases, this can involve the introduction of a new product via an arrangement with an older, more established brand. If done well, such an arrangement can help expand the reputation and market share of both parties. A textbook example of this type of initiative done successfully is the now-legendary “Intel Inside” campaign, which launched a brand that few consumers had ever heard of by marketing it in connection with some of the biggest computer manufacturers, such as IBM and Compaq. Within a year of the program's launch, Intel was co-branding with hundreds of computer manufacturers.
In all cases, the goal of co-branding arrangements is to combine the strength of the two brands in order to increase the cache of the shared product, and make the product or service more resistant to copying by third parties. In many cases, the co-branded product can also be sold at a premium, such as Ford's Eddie Bauer Explorer and Subaru's Limited Edition LL Bean Outback SUVs. When considering co-branding opportunities, think creatively about products or services that complement your brand, and that will enhance the appeal or credibility of your offering.
Although there are many benefits to co-branding, as with any arrangement that could impact the value and reputation of your brand, these agreements need to be entered into with caution. Ahead of exploring any co-branding opportunities, companies should develop their own branding guidelines that will allow them to objectively assess opportunities as they arise. Factors to consider include
- The reputation of the potential partner brand
- Current market position of the companies vis-à-vis one another
- The degree of control over use of the brand
- Financial strength of the potential partner
- The marketing opportunity presented by the arrangement
Instituting guidelines ahead of evaluating any marketing opportunities can help make the process more objective. Companies should also avoid the overuse of co-branding, which could dilute the effectiveness of the programs.
Finally, keep in mind that the best co-branding efforts match companies with similar core values and corporate philosophies. When entered into strategically, co-branding can help build equity in your brand by enhancing reputations by association, helping solidify market position and differentiating offerings from those of competitors.
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 AllExits Leave American Airlines, SiriusXM, Spotify Searching for New Legal Chiefs
2 minute read'A Warning Shot to Board Rooms': DOJ Decision to Fight $14B Tech Merger May Be Bad Omen for Industry
'Incredibly Complicated'? Antitrust Litigators Identify Pros and Cons of Proposed One Agency Act
5 minute readTrending 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