Friday, March 30, 2012

Trademark Squatting or Extortion?


You’ve probably heard stories of fake Apple stores in China. These stores completely copy the Apple store from the all-white decor to the blue shirt wearing salespeople. With all stories, I wonder: how can these storeowners get away with this? No store in United States could even get away with copying the blue shirt styles let alone the all white décor. However, “Trademark squatting in China doesn’t sit well with U.S. retailers” by David Pierson of LAtimes.com explains the fake Apple stores, along with the fake Kardashian, Justin Bieber, J. Crew, Jordan, and Eminem brands in the Chinese market.

The article reports, in China “trademarks generally are awarded to those who are first to register them with government authorities. If these and other U.S. companies want to use their own names, they probably will have to pay the Chinese holder for the rights”. In the U.S., trademarks are awarded to those that use them first. So, if an established U.S. brand tries to move into China and the name is trademarked, under Chinese law, the trademarked user could charge the U.S. brand to use their name. Example in article, “In northeastern Liaoning province, someone owns the trademark to make clothing under the Oprah Winfrey brand.”

The exception to the law is to prove that the trademark holder in China registered in bad faith. Although, Stan Abrams a law professor in Beijing is quoted saying “The system here on the whole is geared towards first to file, and it takes a lot of time and effort to rebut the presumption that the registrant filed in bad faith” Hermes International, Chivas Bros, and Pfizer Inc. have tried to file suits and have failed.  Apple and Michael Jordan are currently involved in suits against companies making revenue from their names.

Throughout the article, many of the trademark users in China gave no comment, with the exception of Xu Junwu and Zhen Yongyu. Xu Junwu owns the trademark for J. Crew. His “good faith” defense of using the brand name: “said he’s never heard of the U.S. clothing chain and explained that his sales team came up with the name”.  In his own words “They just picked something easy to remember without a lot of letters… we’ve put a lot of effort into building this brand, we’re recognized in China” The last part of that quote is his response to whether he would charge J. Crew to use their own name in China.

Zhen Yongyu owns the name Eminem and claims, “I’ve never heard of Eminem… If this Eminem turns out to be a famous singer, we’re willing to cooperate as a potential partner to release this brand in China. We’re also open to selling it.”

There’s no other word to describe this “trademark squatting” other than bull#hit. I apologize for the word but I truly honestly, in good faith, can’t think of any other word that truly embodies this entire scheme. Oprah, Eminem, Apple, Michael Jordan, and any other well established celebrities and brands will have to pay to use their own name/brand. In order to reclaim their brand, first will have to prove that the other person did it in bad faith. Explain to me how a “team” picking a name out of air and oops, it happened to be a well-established brand is a “good faith” defense.  I’m pretty sure that these trademark owners in China have access to some form of media that allows them to search names. Who hasn’t heard of Eminem, Oprah Winfrey, or Michael Jordan?

Most brands will likely seek legal action instead of paying for their name. Or they might ignore the market altogether. Last thought to consider: this might sound like a smart extortion plan for the trademark holder but doesn’t this scare U.S. retailers from entering the Chinese market?

Friday, March 9, 2012

AT&T's 4G is Not Real 4G


Yesterday AT&T had an update “courtesy of Apple’s new iOS 5.1 software update”.  With this update comes a surprise for iPhone 4S users. Their phones will display their speed as 4G. However, according to “For Apple iPhone 4S Owners, 4G the Easy Way” by Andrew Dowell of WSJ.com, it’s not an upgrade in speed just a change in name. This “4G” is actually 3G under a new name.

According to article the update actually states that this is an “Updated AT&T network indicator”. The article also states this as legal: ”the International Telecommunications Union, a standards body, a standards body, said techologies like AT&T’s HSPA-plus could be labeled 4G.”

After AT&T’s consumer battle over reducing customer’s speed without reasonable notification, you would think AT&T would stray from more bad press. Apparently, they believe they’re invincible and can’t suffer from bad publicity. Regardless that it is legally allowed to state that their speed is 4G, AT&T is basically changing the name of a product to act as if they have benefited their customers. They are lying to current and prospective customers. Maybe when AT&T had the iPhone exclusively this would make sense. However, AT&T no longer has exclusivity over the iPhone or iPads and their recent actions with customers is going to be perceived as if they could care less to lose subscribers once contracts are up. How exactly is this a winning move against their competitors?

When I see a 4G indicator on my phone, I believe I have 4G (by the way, I am not an AT&T customer). My phone indicates it and so does my contract. AT&T has proven they don’t heed their contracts and now their phones are lying to you. Maybe someone in marketing/ public relations needs to sit down with executives of the company to teach common sense and plan for exodus when contracts are up.

Is Cable the Next Step for Netflix?


Netflix CEO Reed Hastings believes cable might be the future for the company. “Netflix Said to Be Aiming for a Cable Partnership” by Amy Chozick from NYtimes.com reports, “Over the last several weeks, Mr. Hastings and his top lieutenants have met with major cable operators to discuss a way for Netflix to appear on monthly cable bills”. The article reported Hastings saying "We are more and more a classic cable network".

This “partnership” would essentially be your cable provider offering Netflix as a service via your cable box and then having the charge appear on your bill. The article points out partnering with cable would offer Netflix millions more subscribers - currently they have 21.7 million.

Cable seems like an awkward next step considering the cable industry was not friendly with Netflix. Players within the cable industry blamed Netflix for “cord-cutting” and felt the company was getting content at “cheap” prices compared to what cable companies paid. Nonetheless, others jumped on to streaming; Amazon, HBO, and Comcast have streaming service. These competitors come with lots of cash, which can outbid Netflix for content.


Thursday, March 8, 2012

Is Google and Amazon in a price war?

Last night, I decided to check Amazon for their monthly $5 album deals. Amazon is very notorious for offering books and music at lower-than-normal prices for the sake of gaining sales. While I saw an album or two I might get, something caught my eye - an album for $0.25. That's right 25 cents. Considering the album, "Tha Carter IV", is by Lil Wayne a popular artist, I decided to search the reason Amazon would sell an album so cheap. I think the cheapest they sold an album was for $3.99 and that was a week promotion for a new release. Well, I found the reason.

This week Google changed Android Market into Google Play. To promote the brand name change, Google is offering an album a day for $0.25. They (as of last night when I wrote this) were also offering the same album for $0.25. It seems Google and Amazon are in a price war. Well, the deal has clearly worked for Amazon. According to Amazon stats (as of 2:32am), "Tha Carter IV" with digital booklet has jumped to #1 with a 122,890% increase. 

With such deep discounts throughout the week, I guess Amazon and Google are willing to risk lots of profit for the sake of customers. Or this is their way of showing they have so much money they can actually offer products for less a dollar. With all this money to throw around, what else can we look forward to?