Hickenlooper's new trademark more than just a beer coaster

This past summer, Gov. John Hickenlooper unveiled a new ‘trianglized-licence plate looking’ trademark to market the State of Colorado nationwide and overseas. More recently, State Rep. Bob Rankin (R-Glenwood Springs), introduced legislation to have the people decide whether they want a new logo for Colorado.

Colorado's new federally registered trademark

A week ago, H.B. 1017 was killed by the Democrats, on a party line vote, in the House Business, Labor, Economic and Workforce Development Committee.

Rep. Rankin fell short of promulgating the negative legal consequences Hickenlooper’s new trademark may have on Colorado businesses. To begin, we need to first understand some basics of American trademark law.

 

A trademark is a word or phrase, logo, or other graphic symbol used by a manufacturer or seller to distinguish its product or products from others in the market place. The main purpose of a trademark is to designate the source of goods or services. Therefore, a trademark is something that only exists with respect to some commercial activity.

Trademarks can take one of three forms: standard character format; stylized/design format; or sound mark. For example, the word: “Coke” is a standard character mark, which means any style or symbol with the word “Coke” is protected under the Lanham Trademark Act of 1946. The Coke bottle-logo is a good example of a stylized/design mark. And yes, the roar of the Harley-Davidson engine is a protected sound mark.

When federally registering marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, a class of goods or services must be indicated. Going back to the “Coke” example, the Coca-Cola Company has registered the use of the Coke mark on everything from clothing to toys to food and drink products.

A quick search of the USPTO shows that Hickenlooper’s trademark is registered as a standard character mark, which means that the trademark owner has an obligation to pursue any individual or entity that uses the words: “CO” or “Colorado” on any “Clothing, namely, tee shirts, sweat shirts, polo's, hats, and jackets.”

In layman’s terms, Hickenlooper has successfully stifled private businesses in Colorado who make a living putting the word “Colorado” on a t-shirt and selling it to tourists. In other words, the state is now a direct competitor in the intellectual property arena with Colorado businesses.

In order to avoid open licencing, the State of Colorado will be forced to send hundreds of cease-and-desist-letters to small business across this state who dare infringe upon the state’s intellectual property right.

The second registered class which Hickenlooper is claiming is for “promoting public awareness about Colorado itself, and public services offered through Colorado state government entities, as well as promoting products and services originating from Colorado businesses and organizations.” Here, the state may have a legitimate interest, but the question still remains, why are they claiming a mountain of rights, when they really on need a hill?

The USPTO search also revealed the registered owner is not listed as the State of Colorado, but as Brand Colorado, a division of Colorado Nonprofit Development Center, which is located in Boulder. Shouldn’t the trademark owner be an actual state entity, such as the Colorado Tourism Office?

The Hickenlooper Administration’s effort to replace the Colorado State flag and seal with a trendier brand/trademark circumvents the reason for emblems of state. The current state trademarks – the flag and seal – identify and distinguish the source of state services / goods for the public. Additionally, each agency has its own trademark to indicate to the public the services they offer.

Creating more official trademarks to represent the State of Colorado blurs the distinction of which trademark represents, which is the source of the services. In other words, more marks confuse the public about which one actually represents the State of Colorado.

This past summer I was at the US Open Tennis Championships in New York and saw a man with a ball cap and Colorado flag on it. I asked him if he was from Colorado, as it is always great to see fellow Coloradoans when outside the state. He told me he had just spent a week holidaying in Aspen and thought we had a really cool flag design. Perhaps this New Yorker was not the target of the new trademark marketing campaign.

During my time in Edinburgh, Scotland, it was quite common to see tourists with stylized Colorado gear, mostly an artistic version of the red “C” with fields of blue and white. Of perhaps all the states, Colorado has one of most iconic and memorable flag-trademarks and adding a new mark only serves to block intellectual property fields which should be in the hands of the private sector.

Adding a new trianglized-licence plate looking trademark to the state’s intellectual property portfolio only serves to confuse the general public on which mark actually represents the State of Colorado. Additionally, Hickenlooper’s mark fails the state’s real objective, which is to market the state to tourists, businesses, and investors.