Whether you call her Hip Hop royalty or the next generation of stardom, on January 7th 2012 Jay –Z and Beyonce welcomed their first child, a daughter named Blue Ivy Carter. At just 4 days old, Blue Ivy Carter was the youngest person to appear on the Billboard Charts with the sweet melody of her cries on her father’s song titled Glory. But is she the youngest person to have a clothing line named after her?

On January 11th 2012, fashion designer Joseph Mbeh filed for a trademark application with the USPTO for the mark BLUE IVY CARTER NYC for “Infant, toddler and junior clothing namely, t-shirts, pants, dresses, skirts, jeans, belts, hats, caps, sweaters, fleece pullovers, jogging suits, coats, scarves, bodysuits, socks, sleepwear, undergarments, boots, sandals and athletic footwear”. This application is the first application from Mbeh of any kind to the USPTO. Mbeh listed his clothing line as first use and in commerce on January 9th, just 2 days after this mega superstar baby was born.

There are a few questions that arise with this application filing. The first, do celebrities and their offspring have automatic right to their name? And the second being, is this unfair capitalizing on a celebrity’s kid or is it a brilliant idea of beating the parents to the punch?

Celebrities and their children do not have automatic trademark rights to their names. Names and surnames are viewed as descriptive and descriptive marks are not entitled to automatic legal protection. Most superstars have secured registrations for the protection of their names. Both Jay-Z and Beyonce have trademark registrations for their names covering a wide range of goods and services. The Kardashians and the Jenners all have trademark registrations for their names.

Although Blue Ivy Carter does not gain automatic trademark rights for her famous name, it is known that a living person must give consent for the use of their name in a trademark. Mbeh did not seek any sort of permission from The Carter’s before filing an application to use Blue Ivy Carter. In addition, Mbeh has no proof of having the clothing line that bears the name of Blue Ivy Carter prior to the birth of Beyonce’s child. Having proof of use prior to the birth of Blue Ivy could play in Mbeh favor by showing he did not copy the celebrity’s name. Being that Blue Ivy Carter name is a more distinct name than most this may be a tough hurdle for Mbeh to jump.

In a previous, Angelina Jolie clashed with a French perfume marker, Symine Salimpour who went on to register a perfume named Shiloh. Angelina Jolie was outraged with the fact that Symine Salimpour was naming her perfume Shiloh after her daughter Shiloh Nouvel Jolie-Pitt. The case was dropped by Jolie. Salimpour seem to have gain free fame and proved that in Hebrew, Shiloh means “his gift” and that the perfume will be used to give something back to the children of Israel and the Middle East. However, this is not quite the same argument that could be used in Mbeh defense.

What are your thoughts? Should celebrities have automatic rights to trademark registrations for their names and kid’s names?

Will The Carters oppose the use of their baby’s name? I believe that there will be a strong chance of The Carters going after Mbeh. Although the only way they can oppose the trademark application is by opposition with another trademark application, which the camps of Beyonce or Jay-Z have at this time. The couple can however use the “Right of Publicity”, which protects the commercial use of his or her name, image, likeness or other unequivocal aspects of one's identity. I think that Mbeh is definitely using the likeness of Blue Ivy Carter’s name to sell baby clothing.

Smart and Swiftly? Or Sleazy and Sneaky?

I tend to have daydreams a lot when I am alone – in the shower, on a short commute, preparing for bed. It’s like my brain is begging for some “me time,” some one-on-one attention. While I spend most of the day juggling meetings and presentations, my brain has been furiously taking notes, just waiting for the perfect moment to bombard me with a million ideas, as if it were my over-achieving personal assistant. I can almost hear the dialogue: “Brandy! Brandy! What do you think about this?” or “Hey, isn’t this a cool idea!” or “What if…?”

Let me clarify: This is not about being merely distracted. As early as grade school, I would be engaged and attentive in class, yet feel like my brain was continually ten steps ahead of my body. I would find myself constantly multi-tasking; participating in a class discussion while mentally choreographing a dance routine, envisioning my next art project, and thinking about some boy, all while doodling my mermaid-inspired prom dress complete with a seashell-inspired bustier. Some may diagnose this flurry of cranial cartwheels as attention deficit disorder; however, I’ll defend it as the inner workings of a creative, right-brain package designer eager to connect with her left-brain coworkers and clients.

Bridging the great divide
The “right brain” is sympathetic to spontaneous thought, and spends much of its time solving multiple creative problems. The “left brain” is more straightforward, analytical and precise in its musings. Working in a branding and package design agency requires understanding and appreciating both left- and right-brained thinkers to attain maximum results. This can be difficult if you are a “righty,” as sometimes left-leaning thinkers can (in a righty’s estimation) overwork a creative vision by adding lengthy lists of objectives, success criteria, and consumer validation. After reading a list of “can’ts,” how do we right-brain folks stay inspired and create brilliant package design solutions that also deliver solid business results?

Here’s an example: A left-brain brand manager may be looking for a device to increase sales volume or, as we righties typically say, “delight” their consumers. The problem is that an Excel spreadsheet or PowerPoint presentation does not have the capability to harness a righty’s imagination. We need to use a much bigger net; to expand before we contract. It’s like having a 2x2 versus a 40x40 canvas on which to create a painting: If I work on a 2x2 canvas, I have to do a lot of upfront planning and formulating ideas before even picking up a brush; so much so that when I finally do begin, each brush stroke ends up becoming very rigid and expected. Working on the 40x40 canvas, though, I could be relaxed, experimental, and free to find a “happy accident” which could become the centerpiece I didn’t realize I was creating when I began.

Lost in metaphors? Lefties, bear with me. I am not advocating creative chaos. I’m talking about balancing creative exploration and project management to produce breakthrough package design that works within a client’s budget and time constraints. Here are some ways to bridge the great divide; to merge two opposing trains of thought, one linear, one swirly:

This is an excerpt that originally appeared in the November 2011 issue of Package Design Magazine. To read the full article please click here.

Steve Jobs may have been front and center for the iPad 2 release, but his long-term role with Apple is anything but certain. What should companies like Apple do when their founder and visionary finally step down?

Companies often grow up with their original founders, maturing and stabilizing as these people move from hungry, risk-taking entrepreneurs to corporate stalwarts. But what happens when companies built on their founder’s vision face the difficulty of continuing without them? How do businesses prepare themselves for this inevitable challenge? The answer is not simple and certainly not easy to achieve, but whether you are a big brand like Apple, facing the prospect of a brand without Steve Jobs, or a smaller-scale brand facing the same predicament, the same rules and tactics apply. Below are some tips on how to ensure a seamless transition.

Read more on Portfolio.com.

Hidden in the folds of last month’s edition of Wallpaper magazine was an advertisement for an electric version of the smart “ForTwo,” two-seater.

The ad came as a surprise for a few reasons. First, it has been a while since I've heard from smart, the iconic compact automobile brand. With sales under pressure and the passing away of its conceptual “father” earlier this year (Nicolas Hayek, founder of Swatch), there have been rumors questioning the brand's continued existence. Second, what really drew my attention was the fact that in the corner of the ad, appeared the words “smart: a Daimler brand.” This is an interesting development, and not one with a strong precedent in the automotive industry.


By attaching the Daimler name to the smart brand, Daimler is clearly trying to attach certain equities to the smart brand: legacy, supreme quality and continuity. Interestingly, the Daimler brand name still holds a lot of traditional values in our minds. The move made me wonder if Daimler's main brand, Mercedes Benz, could do with a similar seal of quality.

It will be interesting to see how the other automotive conglomerates will react to this strategy. Will we soon see “Skoda: a Volkswagen brand,” “SEAT: a Volkswagen brand,” or heaven forbid, “Volkswagen: a Porsche brand"? And if the latest news is to be believed, how about “Alfa Romeo: a Volkswagen brand"?

It seems extremely unlikely that we will see “Opel: a GM brand,” but “Saab: Spyker brand” may have some merit.

Then again, these examples are not entirely aligned as Volkswagen, GM, Spyker and Porsche, are still actively in used as car brands – and Daimler is not.

Even so, we should continue to watch this space to see how car brands and their masterbrands’ relationships continue to evolve.

First published by The Marketer blog

Coca-Cola is an example of a brand that is consistently renewing

Too often consistency and renewal are set up as mutually exclusive adversaries. We either dogmatically bring the brand to life in tried and tested fashions, or we change, and in changing accept a loss of continuity that could be to the detriment of the brand’s equity for a period of time.
But does it really have to be like this?

Any brand strategy should be regarded as a ‘direction’ for the company that articulates the ambitions it has for its reputation. In order to own that reputation it may need to show flexibility. If the brand has values it wants to convey, it’s logical that it will to take actions to demonstrate these values and making these demonstrations real means the brand will have to evolve at the pace that its stakeholders and society moves at. This keeps the brand fresh and maintains momentum. After all, what felt innovative in 1990 is unlikely to feel innovative in 2010.

So perhaps the only way to keep a brand consistent is to accept that it needs to constantly renew.

Too often branding work is regarded as a ‘fix’ in its own right, or a solution to a problem or deficiency. This mindset allows businesses to feel that they have ‘done’ the brand whereas in reality branding is a continual an ongoing process. Once the brand is regarded as an asset, then like any other business asset there is a recognition that the brand needs sustained activity if its value is to grow.

Branding work that seeks to persuade an organisation that from here on in the brand shouldn’t be touched or is ‘off limits’ is misguided and ultimately won’t deliver the true value of the brand to its constituents. Brands have to be regarded as a living business asset that feeds off activity to grow and live.

Does your brand feel like it’s alive?