I think general convention is that if you use the symbol upon the first mention (however grudgingly), you are allowed to thereafter dispense with it. Of course, you have to get the Party of the First Part (your legal beagle) to agree to this; well worth an argument, I'd say. Overuse sometimes seems to be the fault of the marketing person, trying to make a point that Our Wonderful Product is trademarked.

Gaaaa! My second pub for my new job with a manufacturer is at the printer and one article has at least three registered trademarks. NOW you tell me!!!!

Live and learn.

Well, you tell me: Why are they in there?

You're not going to win. Give up. If you have a legal department that thinks missing a trademark is the end of the world, you will never win the argument because management will listen to the legal department because it's a legal issue. The problem really isn't even the marks. But when you use a word that has to have a mark, you have to use that word as an adjective. So, say your brand is Big Hamburgers(tm), you get to write Big Hamburgers(tm) hamburgers. Awesome, eh? Oh, I forgot, you have to set it off somehow too, so it would be BIG HAMBURGERS(tm) hamburgers.

So far, we still get away with using the mark only on first reference, though. But we still have to set off the brand name with an italics, bold or all caps, and we still have to always use the name as an adjective.

So, really, in our world, your headline should be: A problem in need of a SOLUTION(r)fix.

This is SO DUMB. So uncivilized. To protect their precious profits, companies will gunk up the landscape, the airways and prose.

Trade Mark, what do your legal beagles say when you point out that other, seriously brand-conscious companies like McDonald's, Disney, Coca-Cola, don't bother with this crap?

Do they think Disney is just lax and foolish in comparison to L&L RoofingTile(TM)?

I have to agree with Mark. There's always someone who will use your name or product without that stupid little mark, and Legal can trot out any number of copyright infringement precedents to convince the powers that be you MUST have the proof it's yours to warn off those thieves. Whatever.

This is a bigger issue of course in companies with lots of products (all of which are trademarked). I always took it as a challenge to write even cleaner, more simple prose to try and offset any distraction caused by the marks. I also tried to write articles and things one at a time rather than grouping references to several products in the same article, so that there were at least a few words without the mark!

I do have to wonder though, aside from curmudgeons who's job it is to critique these sorts of things (with complete respect David), do most people reading these things REALLY notice the trademark thingies? Or do they just gloss right over them? I mean, we struggle to get them to read the ACTUAL words in these publications, is it likely that they are even seeing the copyright and trademark symbols?

Truthfully, I'm not sure this is a hill I want to die on when there are bigger mountains out there.

Oh, I really think this is a huge readibility and credibility issue, Kristen.

Aside from the obvious credibility thing--gee, we don't read these symbols in newspapers and magazines and other REAL media--I think the LOOK of prose matters a hell of a lot as people decide whether or not to read it.

The paragraph above, for Instance® is a hell of a lot lot More Inviting to Read (MITR) than this Paragraph (tm) with its horrible initialisms (HIs) and Ridiculous Symbols®.

Especially when the publication is peppered with these things, readers'll skip over them all right—because they'll skip over the whole publication.

I think this is an important issue, and worthy of a rigorous fight.

>>McDonald's, Disney, Coca-Cola, don't bother with this crap?<<

Don't fool yourself. Try opening up a restaurant named Murry's McDonalds or introduce a new beverage with a play on the Coca-Cola name or trout out anything commercial that even hints of mouse ears in the design and you'll see just how much they don't care about this crap.

The reason is that if they don't attempt to safeguard their marks, everytime, they could lose protection which could cost them untold amounts in brand equity.

Back when I accepted a job with Zellerbach which was a division of Mead Paper, one of the early meetings I had was with Mead's VP or Corporate Communications. One thing he drilled into my head was the almost sacred tenant: "Thou shalt protect the integrity of the trademark at all costs."

With good reason. Several years before I came on the scene Mead had introduced a coated line of printing paper under the trademarked name "Black and White." When a small paper company started marketing another type of paper under the same name, Mead took them to court.

However, the other paper company was able to show a number of promotional materials Mead had used in which the mark appeared in a variety of styles, type faces, color palettes etc. Opposing counsel argued that since Mead obviously wasn't concern or interested in protecting the integrity of its mark, why should his clients be held to a different standard.

The judge agreed, finding for the defense and essentially stripping Mead of any protection for the Black and White brand name.

Craig, I know Disney and McDonald's and all those folks are tough about their brands. But I'm talking about protecting internal publications from this Legal Litter®.

Your horror story regarding Mead notwithstanding, lots of companies DON'T pepper internal publications with this junk.

Are you saying they're being foolish?

And: Isn't there a disclaimer someone could put in a masthead, saying: "This publication is for internal purposes and due to the need for clean, readable prose, we have eliminated the usual trademark symbols. In each mention of our brand in this internal document, these symbols are implied."

Follow-on comment to my last post: There really isn't any legal requirement to put the trademark or registered "bug" everytime the brand name appears. At least that's what our trademark attorney told me a couple of years ago when I was developing brand guidelines for the company I was working with.

I was told that it was only necessary on first reference but, in line with Trade Mark's experience, we were told to set off the mark visually and to use it as an adjective. When I see a block of text with an infestation of trademark bugs it indicates that a) the communicator doesn't know trademark law (or hasn't checked it out) or b) the legal dept is ruling the roost.

Since my focus historically has been on external communications and marketing, PR, web, etc. I don't know the answer to your question about internal use. Logically, I don't think it would be necessary. But then, when does anything related to the law follow logic?

I don't even know why you should have to have the legal disclaimer on internal documents but then, as I said, there could be a perfectly valid reason.

Craig, that's my original point. I just want communicators to address this issue with their legal team and point out that not all companies do this crap.

Just for kicks, I perused the websites of the three companies David mentioned above. Both Coke and McDonalds have the little symbols with their names and products all over the sites. Disney, while not polluting their prose on the site does have a footnote at the bottom of the page noting that Disney is a copyrighted name.

David, I agree with your original post, it would be better not to have those little symbols peppering the prose. Particularly in an employee publication, I doubt we need to hammer people in the face with the fact that our products are protected by copyright. Hell, we can barely get the employees to read the employee publication, so somehow I doubt that they're running around town handing out copies of it to their PTA meetings and the other soccer Moms risking the theft of the intellectual property of the company.

Unfortunately, the lawyers will almost always win this fight, because, as you said it is all about the money. and the company's not going to risk losing it if the little symbol can head that off.

It does, however, suck from a clear communication perspective. Welcome to my world!

You mean there are internal communicators that don't challenge their legal departments when they suggest boneheaded rules? Oh the horror!

Kristen: Yes, I think we ought to make a distinction between external and internal--in this and other matters.

And as usual, I see that in the time it took me to reply, the conversation has moved on without me! Oh well.

The best thing you can do is try to work with your legal department to come up with compromises to limit the number of times you have to use a trademark.

David, I used to work for a daily newspaper, we didn't use trademarks there because the trademarks were not ours to protect. A reporter or editor with a newspaper or magazine could care less about a company's trademark brands. But when you are writing on behalf of the company, it's a different story. Especially when you have a legal department with people who specialize in this stuff. And they could care less about McDonald's or Disney.

If I ever figure a way out of it, I will let you know.

Please do, Trade Mark.

An internal publication full of boldfaced names and legal (R) and (TM) bugs is marketing, meant to "build brand" even if employees just gloss over it on the way to the garbage can.

An internal publication without that dreck is communication, meant to be read, meant to impart information to employees.

Just depends on what you want to do....

I recommend we communicators NOT fight this battle for the following reasons:

1. It is a legal issue and we really won't win it. And trademark infringement does in fact cost companies a lot of money, so they are probably wise to do whatever it takes to protect themselves. I consult a Large, Unnamed Tobacco Company that fights mightily to protect the brand of its major product. Hey, if I can do my part by putting a little thingy behind the name, I'll do it.

2. If we fight this one too hard, it'll give our enemies more firepower against us. "There they go again, fighting for the tasteful use of white space rather than doing what they can to help the business avoid costly trademark infringement."

3. Rather than go down fighting, why not try to reach some sort of compromise? Somewhere in this thread I read the suggestion that it could be as simple a fix as putting the little thingy on the first reference. Surely we're smart enough to come up with something everyone can live with.

Robert

Jane, I find your point extremely black and white, and quite frankly, wrong. Content is king. If people are throwing your magazine in the garbage, it's because you're writing stuff that no one cares about. Your communication efforts do not depend on whether you use a stupid symbol.

I do agree that trademark rules have a negative impact on writing. But I have a hard time swallowing the implication that a publication is less effective because it has a few symbols in it. And I don't think the average reader even notices.

Robert Trade Mark--

I'd go with the "thingy on first reference" compromise in a heartbeat. But "thingies all over the prose like so many pieces of garbage"? I think that's a pill I'd swallow as a last resort, because I really think it hurts readability and unread communication ain't communication at all.

Part of this is a disagreement about how many marks we're talking about. I'm talking about what I sometimes see, which is about one mark per paragraph, and/or repeated lists of Three® Products® In® A® Row® that make a publication look like a brochure.

Employee publications are not brochures, because employees are prospects. Do we require employees to use these thingies when sending e-mail? No. Then why can't we ask the lawyers to consider applying the same, more liberal standard to internal PRINT communication?

I think the question should be asked. I think legal departments should be challenged. And I wish everyone luck when they make their pitch.

I think the more aggressive legal departments wish that they could enforce these rules in employee e-mails.

Here's one possible opening gambit to take with legal regarding extenseive use of "bugs" on exclusively internal publications:

"Mr. Lawyer, help me understand the scope of the risk here. How big a danger is this...have other companies been negatively impacted by this practice? How big was the loss? How often does it happen every year? This information will help me/us adequately communicate the importance of this policy to employees."

Changes are you will find, as I have in challengeing IT security geeks, that they really can't point to a clear and present danger or precedent of danger/damage befalling other companies. I could be wrong but it might just be that they are guarding against a unlikely possiblity as opposed to safeguarding the company against a known danger.

If this is indeed the case, the ball then shifts into your court. You need to determine if you have any grounds to engage with legal to modify their stance or, if you feel strongly enough about it, taking it up with senior management.

Trade Mark: My comment WAS pretty black-and-white. What I was envisioning was what David described: a publication TEEMING with the little buggers. Employees know at one glance whether they're being trusted with pertinent information--or just marketed to as if they were any other untrustworthy but prospective customer.

The battle is between safety (a good thing) and real communication (another good thing). The consequences of not staying safe fill business journals and law texts; the consequences of not communicating effectively with employees are, alas, more amorphous, less directly tied to money, and less energetically documented. But it's part of our job to make the case and get the CEO interested in helping us reach an amicable compromise with Legal.

For the love of a good and holy God . . . with all the battles we need to be fighting, do we really want to spend any blood on THIS ONE?

If I'm going to die on a hill, it's going to be during the battle of let's communicate bad news right away to employees; or the fight for getting more creative writing into our vehicles; or any one of a dozen more important fights.

Don't you think?

And I agree with whoever said that the communicator who decides to get pissy over some trademark symbols is going to have a lot harder time winning some of those other, more important fights.

Steve C.

Craig makes a great point about pushing back by asking questions -- whether of lawyers, senior management or whomever is trying to call the shots. Often, when challenged, the people who insist on stringent rules about content (whether the little trademark thingies or the use of corporate jargon or whatever) find they don't have a leg to stand on.

But more important, the communicator comes out looking less like a temperamental artist and more like a smart business person, which is what we need to look like sometimes in order to gain the confidence and trust of senior management (including their lawyers).

Invite the lawyers (or whomever) to sit down and explain to you the need for the little trademark thingies. Or why we can't tell employees the whole story about the latest downsizing. Or why certain jargony words must be used when a shorter and clearer word could be used.

This is not just theory. It actually works. I've been consulting with a major corporation whose very existence depends on its compliance with myriad laws, regulations and society's permission. Every single piece of communication is scrutinized by at least two teams of lawyers. We invited the lawyers to help us understand what they're up against and to help them understand what we are trying to accomplish as communicators. It was almost a spiritual experience. :-) Seriously, each side left with a much greater understanding and appreciation for what the other deals with every day. And our battles have been fewer and easier to work through ever since. Not to say it's perfect, but nothing beats a little face-to-face to build understanding and compromise.

Robert

Robert, you are doing the work of the Lord.

Blessed are the peacemakers...