A clean, simple, elegant logo, completely ruined by the honking TM and (R) injected by the lawyers. The bizarre presence of two separate legalese-related sigils on a single logo makes it impossible to miss. Also makes it clear who is running the place.
It wasn't uncommon for Microsoft to have their name mentioned 4 or 5 times on a single screen, alongside copyright symbols, trademarks, and other crap.
They have sent letters to people using "photoshop" as a verb, especially in a general context where it's not clear that Adobe Photoshop is the editing software.
Bic (pens) write to stop people using Bic instead of ballpoint. (Very successfully it seems, that's not a use I'm aware of.)
Hoover try to stop people using hoover as a verb too.
Google used to try to stop people using "google it" to mean "web search it".
They have to try to protect the mark, otherwise there's no point them having it.
But it can lead to the loss of the trademark if it becomes a common word. Anyone can brand their product with it.
This happened (or at least went to court) with Hoover in the UK I think. Hoover had become the generic term for a Vacuum Cleaner and so any company could make and sell products described as Hoovers (or at least it was an open legal question).
This means it is far from crazy to defend a trademark from generic use.
There is no danger of these companies losing their trademark, anymore than Apple the iPhone maker is in danger of losing its trademark either because the term Apple is associated with other commercial products, e.g., Beatles records or because it is also a common word.
The companies are worried about loss of "uniqueness" (aka. "trademark dilution"), which is a special form of protection that famous and unambiguous trademarks get. Now that the Google trademark is considered unique, you can't start a Gourmet Google Goulash restaurant, even though there is no risk of consumers being confused about who they are dealing with. The law is worried that Google's brand strength might be diluted by their brand managers not having the stage completely to themselves.
I think this whole area of law is fairly recent - Wikipedia says it grew out of anti-cybersquatting efforts in the mid 1990s.
Trademark dilution is different. You can lose the ability to enforce trademarks that become the generic word to refer to things, on the reasoning that people shouldn't be able to have monopolies over the basic usages of language.
This is why average consumers can't tell the difference between an "iPhone" and a Samsung phone -- they use the name of a popular instance of a thing to refer to all instances. A soda is a Coke, a tissue is a Kleenex, a photocopy is a Xerox, an acetaminophen is a Tylenol, an ibuprofen is an Advil, etc.
Microsoft really don't need it. It would be very hard to argue in court that you released a product called 'Windows' without knowing that a similar product from Microsoft already exists, or that you didn't know that your Windows logo is the same or similar to what Microsoft produce.
Microsoft really should just have a subscript in the EULA or splash screen with "Microsoft® and the Windows Logo ™ are registered trademarks of Microsoft Inc. 1 Redmond Way, Redmond, WA, etc."
That is what startups should do as well. The best way to estalish your intellectual property is through soft enforcement, just sending out polite letters whenever somebody uses your marks in their own products. If they don't change, then pursuit further, but this works well with Facebook and in a lot of other cases.
Microsoft is probably aggressive about the windows trademark as it is a very generic trademark and could easily be revoked if not defended vigorously.
Even in relation to operating systems it is generic - think "window manager". Because of this it is very easy to argue that Microsoft should not have been allowed to trademark such a generic term.
A large part of it is probably a CYA attitude by the legal department, too.
If they're too conservative, and legal notices are featured prominently without reason, the price is paid by Microsoft as a whole having mediocre branding, and the legal team is not accountable. But if the trademarks slip away because they've been too liberal, heads will roll.
Thus the incentives are pretty clearly stacked up for the lawyers to insist on protection that minimizes risk to a degree that hurts Microsoft as a whole.
The trademark symbols can provide constructive notice of the registrant's ownership of the mark, and can be used to support enhanced damages for willful infringement which may not be available in the absence of marking.
I actually like the visual appearance of these symbols in some logos, including this one.
I believe in this case I like it because the ™ slightly reinforces the 3D effect, and because it's a rather bad logo to begin with. I.e. almost any change is an improvement and the small pictograms give it a bit of an "organic" touch.
I think TM is what you put prior to the mark being approved as a registered trademark by the USPTO. (It's analogous to "US Patent Pending" but for trademarks.) So eventually there will be two (R) on that logo.
Maybe Microsoft could make the whole logo out of (R) symbols. Then the ones inserted by the lawyers will fit in.
TM doesn't mean anything - a trademark is either registered (and therefore enforceable) or it isn't. You can slap it on pretty much anything you want, it doesn't mean that whatever it is attached to will become a registered trademark, or even that the owner has filed for registration.
I can't speak for the USA or anywhere else but in Canada TM means something. Common law trademarks do come with some rights to protect your brand, Registered trademarks come with more. It's been a long time since my IP Law class but I beleive TM allows protection against business in the same industry from using your trademark in such a way that it could be reasonably confused for yours.
TM still doesn't mean anything in a legal sense - if you're relying on the common law protection then it doesn't matter if you put the two letters next to your logo/brand. Putting TM on doesn't mean you have any protection, and leaving it off doesn't mean you have none.
It suggests that the company has some rights to the brand and might act as a deterrent to others using the brand without permission (especially as most people probably don't understand the difference between registered and unregistered marks).
Very small type at the bottom of their ads. Despite what people think, you are not required to stick a trademark sigil right next to your mark. I have been having this argument with people for nearly 20 years, and don't blame the lawyers so much as the managers who won't take the time and effort to actually think about what the lawyers are telling them.
I've also heard (from MS lawyers) that it's only important to have this at the first point of display of the logo, such as installer or splash screen. Does not have to occur everywhere.
Then that example can be applied to the Surface tablet* and any manufacturer's laptop -- no (TM) there.
But even then, what makes a hardware product different from an advertisement or a software? As far as I know, there's no legal text on the bottom of these hardware products either.
Check out Ross-Whitney Corp. v. Smith Kline & French Labs, 207 F.2d 190, 99 USPQ 1 (1953). Might provide some support for your position if you have to argue with the lawyers ;)
I'm not too keen on trademark law, but as I understand it the point to including an (R) symbol is to provide notice that a mark is registered with the USPTO.
Why does notice matter? It doesn't excuse infringement if the (R) is missing. However, if you infringe on a trademark, damages are due from the date that you know or should know that the mark is registered. So if you register a mark for your obscure brand of shoe trees or whatever, it makes sense to include the (R) wherever you can.
Now who doesn't have this problem? Apple, for one. Unless you've been living under a tree for 35 years, you know that if you sell computers with an Apple logo on the front, you're infringing on a famous registered trademark.
Yahoo also doesn't have this problem, so who knows why they felt they needed to include the (R). During the original dotcom bubble, some companies were notably overzealous about IP, so they may have gone all in at the time only to revisit it now.
It might just be me, but the (R) is practically invisible when looking at the logo on the whole. The TM is much more obnoxious, but I can see why they might be hesitant to use four rectangles askew without it.
I find it completely hilarious that Marissa is not dogfooding. I know that someone else said this earlier in the thread, but why is this on Instagram and not flickr? Come on, at least use your own damn product.
The correct answer to the objection of "but Instagram is better right now" is "I'm going to revitalize this product by using it for my own photos and commentary, even if it sucks right now."
You don't want the CEO of a company giving mindshare to a competitor!
I don't really see Flickr and Instagram as competitors, and saying that Marissa should be using Flickr with blinders on to the other services out there is counterintuitive. Different mindshares for the users, they missed the opportunity really.
Errr, dude, do you work for Microsoft? This is what got them into trouble in the first place, believing their own B.S. Sorry about the M$ slam, but damn, I keep hearing this over and over again, and it's so damn wrong (IMHO).
Seeing all of the (TM)s and (R)s has always annoyed me. When I look at it I always feel an undercurrent that it represents everything stereotypically oppressive about a corporation.
Is there some legal reason for placing them up there (requirement to protect the trademark in this way, a CYA, or some other reason), or are they just up there for show?
If a trademark is challenged, it's often useful/necessary for a party to be able to show that they've been using the mark as a trademark in the past. Slapping TM all over your branding is one way to unambiguously meet that requirement.
That said, in almost all of the cases where a large organisation is using it with a well-known brand, it's more of a CYA than anything else.
On side note, she uses Instagram instead of Flickr. Looks like Flickr needs to step up. Would be fun to see if she says to Flickr team, "I won't use your app unless you improve it"
Wow! This is news to me. Even mobile group didn't have people to do it. When every goddamn investor was pumping money into photo sharing apps. Flickr had the most popular photo-sharing app till 2008 and they missed the mobile tidal wave!
Is there a reason this page is completely devoid of any interactivity? I wanted to view further pictures she might have shared, but clicking her name just brings up pointless statistics (number of photos and followers). Same deal with the comment section. It's like someone pulled a copy of the page and removed all the hyperlinks.
This is definitely being done for a reason. One of the best ways to increase user clicks on a particular link is to remove all the other links on a page.
This case is a bit extreme: Instagram has removed most links not only for mobile web browsers, but also for desktop users. That said, the reason for removing it from desktop browsers may also extend to privacy: I personally really like it that it's not easy to find links to my Instagram posts. Privacy through obfuscation, I suppose.
In any case, Instagram's web presence really encourages users to download the app. That's smart, as that's where Facebook is the weakest... so Instagram was able to focus its (very) limited resources in the one place where it could really shine.
On instagram, you can't browse someone's photos unless you follow them. Otherwise, the only way to see a photo is if you have the URL. It's part of their privacy model.
Her informal management style and potential empowerment of the new 'Yahoo!s' is impressive. I can't think of a setup where a new hire would go around the campus taking off all the Rs without her encouragement.
Only if it’s possessive; apostrophes aren’t for plurals. They refer to their employees as Yahoo!s, which I guess is supposed to be pronounced with an alveolar click.
That's not strictly true. It is partially a matter of editorial style, and many standards have exceptions where apostrophes are used to form plurals.
For example almost everyone agrees that single letters are pluralized with an apostrophe. It is somewhat less common to prescribe an apostrophe in the case of a number either. When this is not allowed, an exception is sometimes made for pluralizing the number zero so that it is not mistaken for the letter O.
It is fairly common to pluralize period-less abbreviations with apostrophes. The New York Times, for example, follows that standard. It is more common still for abbreviations with periods to take an apostrophe.
So basically, no. You don't get to just say "this is the rule for apostrophes in all cases" because that's not how the written word works. We (or the publication we are writing for) can choose our own editorial style, and screw anyone who doesn't like it (although you should be consistent, of course).
But interestingly enough, this is one situation where there can be a universally correct answer: a trademark. If Yahoo! puts out guidelines for how they would like their trademark pluralized, and they say it should be "Yahoo!s", then that is what everyone should use. If they say it should be "Yahoo!'s", then that's what everyone should use, even if it violates their usual rules.
It is fairly common to pluralize period-less abbreviations with apostrophes. The New York Times, for example, follows that standard. It is more common still for abbreviations with periods to take an apostrophe.
The New York Times doesn't do a great job of following that standard if indeed they try to. Searching for CDs gives me many more examples of "CDs" than "CD's" -- the only one I saw was a blog post, which is probably copy-edited less strictly than an article in the paper. Similarly, searching for ATMs gives "ATMs" and "A.T.M.'s", but not "ATM's". Others I found: both "GTOs" and "GTO's", "LCDs", "TVs", both "B&Bs" and "B&B's". The phrase "A's and B's", referring to grades, was always written with apostrophes, as was the phrase "P's and Q's".
One of the fun thing of doing these searches is that really old articles are mixed in with the results. Searching for LPs shows that it has been written "LPs" since at least 1955 and also yields this intriguing headline: "DIGITAL COMPACT DISKS - REPLACEMENT FOR LPs?" from 1983.
You’re preaching to the choir. I didn’t take the time to give a better thought out comment—if I had, you’d know I don’t really believe in the apostrophe at all, let alone “correctness”.
Copyright and trademark are just tools to be used by those who can. Case in point --- Apple uses any music they want in their TV commercials and never pays to license it. Apparently, in their opinion, the artist deserves nothing more than the opportunity to benefit from increased exposure. I suppose that's why they pick more obscure music (CSS).
Another interesting point is that, for some time now, movie distributors have used the FBI seal without licensing it. But that seal sure makes the video piracy warning look official! http://www.sonnyboo.com/images/tips/FBI.jpg
I agree. There's a tangible sense of renewal at Yahoo - they've been stagnant for so long, it's refreshing to see them challenging the status quo and revitalising their culture.
I judge a CEO by what he or she instagrams about the company and how the employees contribute their 2 cents to the company logo.
Ok, excuse the sarcasm. But I don't see what this tells us about Yahoo! or Meyers performance as a CEO. I'd like to hear more about how she's managing Yahoo!, augmenting its products and services, and above all how that this performance translates to better earnings.
Excellent! I'd love to see more companies follow suit. I have a bunch of 'logowear' and it annoys me greatly when a company puts TM or R after its logo on shirts, hats, jackets, etc. It seems absurd to me to need to protect their mark so vigorously on clothing when it's a tech company -- I don't mind seeing TM/R in advertisements, on their website, etc. but don't place it on clothing!
Seriously, I'm tired of seeing her name in the press for no valuable reasons: no assigned parking, iphone for all employee, open space, now the (r) removed from the logo. Come on all of these changes are ok but not worth all the press.
Let me know when she actually change the group strategy or announces new products !
Keep in mind that if Marissa had posted this to Flickr, we wouldn't even be discussing this. The last thing you want from a CEO at Yahoo! is for them to suffer from the head-in-the-sand delusion that Yahoo's services "are" the internet.
In a company of Yahoo's size and complexity structural change will always take a while to implement. They're no doubt revising everything from structure to value proposition and brand. I'm personally impressed at the changes implemented thus far - some visible quick wins and more importantly a focus on reinvigorating their culture.
Maybe they should stop focusing on value prop and brand. Instead focusing on services decent enough that you can host an image of your logo instead of having to ask Facebook.
I don't think they're mutually exclusive - in the sense that they're not focusing on value prop at the expense of services. (Just speculating here - I don't work for Yahoo, but have a background in corporate strategy). There's obviously a lot of fixes to be made and synergies to be found, but to achieve change of this magnitude first and foremost you need to reinvigorate culture - so I believe they're setting positive foundations.
I don't think it's one or the other. Removing the trademark from these logos is low-hanging fruit - an easy way for Marissa to signal that deeper change is afoot, and to assure employees that she "gets it".
http://i50.tinypic.com/15oidfb.jpg
A clean, simple, elegant logo, completely ruined by the honking TM and (R) injected by the lawyers. The bizarre presence of two separate legalese-related sigils on a single logo makes it impossible to miss. Also makes it clear who is running the place.