Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Brand Strength: Balancing Marketing and Legal Perspectives

By Steve Baird® on March 23, 2009
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

How strong is your brand? The answer may depend on who you ask.

To a marketer, brand strength might be considered inversely proportional to the number and kinds of products it appears on, with the strongest of brands pointing to a single product.
Dan Kelly previously alluded to the marketing concern of “overbranding” here and here.

Al and Laura Ries raise the same concern; overbranding breaks several of their 22 Immutable Laws of Branding:

No. 1: “The Law of Expansion: The power of a brand is inversely proportional to its scope.”

No. 2: “The Law of Contraction: A brand becomes stronger when you narrow its focus.”

No. 10: “The Law of Extensions: The easiest way to destroy a brand is to put its name on everything.”

No. 22: “The Law of Singularity: The most important aspect of a brand is its single-mindedness.”

So, following this learned marketing guidance, a well-recognized pinnacle of brand strength might be the ROLEX® brand for watches; a world famous brand that appears to have resisted the temptation of straying beyond time-keeping devices.

Perhaps at the other extreme, embracing each and every brand extension temptation, in apparent conflict with those “immutable” laws of branding, is VIRGIN®, the brand conceived by Sir Richard Branson and applied to virtually every product and service known to man, from sound recordings to air transportation services, to comic books, to cell phones, to soft drinks, to banking services, to shampoo, to insurance services, to clothing, to playing cards, and on and on.

What might surprise even experienced marketing gurus is that the ROLEX® and VIRGIN® brands both can enjoy great legal strength, meaning each casts a long and wide shadow that may be useful in enforcement actions against a wide variety of diverse and non-competitive goods and services. The impressive legal strength of each may exist, however, for different reasons.

ROLEX® enjoys great legal strength because it consists of a truly famous coined mark that is not only inherently strong and distinctive, but commercially strong and distinctive too. This well-recognized fame protects ROLEX® from dilution and non-competitive uses, even when there is no likelihood of confusion. While the VIRGIN® brand doesn’t necessarily share the same inherent qualities, it nevertheless enjoys broad and strong legal rights too. Why? Because, contrary to the “immutable” branding “laws” identified above, trademark law actually rewards brand owners with broader and greater exclusive rights when the brand is applied on more and more goods and services, because likelihood of confusion is more easily shown.

Moral of the story: If you have a truly famous brand you can enjoy rights of great magnitude, and even prevent dilution of the distinctiveness of the brand, without regard to how many different goods or services are sold under your brand. Without fame, however, your best bet for broad and strong trademark rights is to use the brand on as many goods and services as possible.

Photo of Steve Baird® Steve Baird®

View my professional biography

Just so you know, I’m all about brands and the law, both professionally and personally. I regularly annoy family and friends in retail stores by focusing on product labels—not to buy the product, but to read the fine print…

View my professional biography

Just so you know, I’m all about brands and the law, both professionally and personally. I regularly annoy family and friends in retail stores by focusing on product labels—not to buy the product, but to read the fine print and ask, “Who owns these brands” and “Did they really register those marks?” To understand the depth of my passion for brands and helping clients achieve their business goals, legally, you must understand that my interest in business and branding goes back to the late 1960s. The very first brand I recall profiting from was Jiffy®. Even before being old enough to deliver papers for the Iowa City Press Citizen, between episodes of Bewitched®, I would bake cupcakes and walk my finished product door-to-door, sampling along the way, of course, throughout our Kimball Road neighborhood, mostly selling them to husbands whose wives didn’t bake enough (probably watching Bewitched®), according to them at least. One hundred percent profit margins are easy when you can use the necessary equipment and raw materials directly from Mom’s kitchen. Mass producing “hot pads” (pot holders, not real estate) and selling them door-to-door was another favorite childhood business venture at the ripe age of six. Graduating to lawn-mowing age worked well with my paper routes because I could easily see who needed help cutting their grass and, in some cases, avoiding neighborhood ridicule. Yes, you’re right, Dad loaned me his Lawn-Boy® mower on weekends, rent-free, and even bought the gasoline (Dad was not brand loyal at all with gasoline, so I have no brand memory there). Another pure profit opportunity. Let’s just say that Mom and Dad were generous, unsecured investors in my development and future. Thanks Mom and Dad, I now understand the meaning of overhead and capital improvements! I bucked a lot of family tradition and jokes to become a lawyer and a trademark guru. There is not one lawyer in the family tree, as far as my sister knows (and she would know). Nearly everyone is, or was, a teacher of some kind. That must be where my passion for educating others about the legal implications of branding comes from. Basically, I have been speaking about the legal implications of branding since the early 90s, after permitting my pharmacist’s license to expire (after being a victim of an armed robbery where Dilaudid® was on the top of the gunman’s list of desired controlled substances), and shortly after working for an 86 year old federal judge whose chambers had a nice view of the White House in Washington, D.C. While I’d like to say that the movie My Cousin Vinny inspired me to become a lawyer, it was released two years after I graduated from law school. So, really, I guess it just inspired me to be a better lawyer and leader. For now, you can call me a “thought-leader” in the trademark world, and the thankful leader of a very talented group of creative and insightful lawyers and staff who are dedicated to putting our intellectual property clients in the best possible position to achieve their business goals. When I’m not in the office, “cracking the whip,” making sure others in the group keep their bios on this blog short and sweet, working (which isn’t to say I’m not still thinking about my clients’ businesses), or soaking it up in the hot-tub with my soul-mate, I am a dedicated family man – a.k.a. the chauffeur. Until they reach the driving age, I’ll continue to shuttle my four wonderful kids around to their athletic and other events, at which you can find me cheering in the stands.

Email
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Business and Commercial
  • Blog:
    DuetsBlog
  • Organization:
    Winthrop & Weinstine, P.A.
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo