Fig: The recent Amul Doodle[1]

Creativity involves breaking expected patterns to look at things differently. The notion of being creative and deploying “out of the box” marketing strategies to drive brand and consumer growth is not a new concept. The ever-increasing competition and the digital revolution have forced brands to go out of their way to stay afresh and ahead of the competition while maintaining their brand identity.

Fluid Trademarks are a relatively new, up-and-coming category of marks that businesses are increasingly using to differentiate their brands and products from the competition. The Morehouse defence[2] (along with Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act)[3]  defines fluid trademarks as marks that change over time (with respect to the original or registered mark) to increase customer engagement. Albeit not explicitly defined, the defence serves as an equitable doctrine that applies when an applicant owns a prior registration “for essentially the same (or substantially similar) mark and goods or services, and for which registration has not been challenged.”

What are Fluid Marks?

Fluid Trademarks essentially serve as an expansion of the base marks, which are registered and known to the public. What makes these marks “fluid” is the interplay between different iterations of the base mark, which is characterised by the use of creative yet diverse graphical and visual components while maintaining the core features of the base mark.

Many brands frequently deploy such marks to commemorate certain special occasions or landmark happenings, enabling them to keep in touch with the ongoing trends and strengthen brand awareness by promoting interaction with the consumers.

For instance, Google’s ‘Doodle’ could be termed the quintessential fluid trademark, where different variants of the Google logo have been used over the years to mark or memorialise national/international events and festivities. Absolut Vodka is another brand that has been commercialising various iterations of its mark by launching special edition bottles to commemorate events. Some other examples of Fluid Marks being deployed by renowned brands in their marketing strategy include Nike’s ‘Just Don’t Do It’ Swoosh, BMW’s spaced logo citing ‘thanks for keeping distance’ during Covid-19, and Starbucks’ ‘Masked Mermaid’.[4]

While it is appreciable that brands are deploying newer strategies to connect with their consumers, the use of Fluid Trademarks presents some pertinent roadblocks when it comes to IP protection that these brands need to take note of.

Protection of Fluid Marks

Although there are no explicit provisions or synonymous precedents citing protection for fluid trademarks in India, registering each iteration of the base mark, which would just be deployed occasionally by these brands, would not make much business sense since it would not be cost-effective in the long run.

Section 15 of the Trademarks Act,[5] 1999 accords protection for a series of trademarks, but it is pertinent to highlight here that the section is effective only when all the variants of the base mark could be anticipated in advance,[6] which is not the case with Fluid Trademarks because of their dynamic nature.

Existing commercial identity and recognition of the base mark do accord common law protection to Fluid Marks. Still, it is pertinent for brand proprietors to consider the following essentials while endeavouring for the protection of Fluid Trademarks:

• Protection for Unregistered Marks: Regardless of whether the brands have moved towards protecting their ‘fluid’ marks or not, the common law still subjects these marks to some sort of protection. In Proctor and Gamble v. Joy Creators,the Delhi High Court held that explicit resemblance need not be a ground to constitute an infringement of the trademark. Substantial resemblance to the primary features of the mark in question might be enough criterion to accord protection to the primary mark.

• The Degree of Variation: The degree of variation of the base mark should be such that the mark retains its source-identifying features while simultaneously being different enough to command distinguished protection. The public should be able to identify the brand owner based on such iterations of their marks.

• Likelihood of Confusion: Multiplicity of the base mark to an extent, such that it loses its source-identifying features, might expose the base mark to losing its distinctiveness, thereby putting the base mark at risk of not being synonymous with the proprietor anymore. Hence, the source-identifying features of the base mark should remain intact in the fluid mark to enable the public and trade to associate the fluid mark and the base mark with the proprietor.

• Copyright Protection: Newer and fundamentally distinct iterations of the base mark may be afforded special protection under the Copyright law since the brands would be subjected to certain rights for their marks even if they are not registered. However, in establishing whether the proprietors would be entitled to a copyright on the mark, the burden of proof shall lie entirely on the proprietors themselves, and hence it would be advisable to maintain a record of the entire creative process, artwork and other resources, that went into the creation of the mark, to establish ownership.

• Continuing Commercial Use and Identity: The base mark should be subject to constant and uninterrupted commercial use, and there should be no demonstration of abandonment of the base mark. While the base mark should be distinctive and recognised across the market, the unregistered ‘fluid mark’ should also be inherently distinctive and have acquired a secondary meaning within the public.[7]

The importance of having the base mark registered for the fluid mark to have any chance of protection was highlighted in the recent case of McGurr v. North Face Apparel Corp.[8], where the US-based artist, Futura, was denied protection for his recognisable, signature stylised atom design because the base mark, i.e., the shape of an atom, was not registered. The District Court for the Central District of California noted that legally recognising fluid trademarks “would give new meaning to federal trademark law with far-reaching consequences.” The court rather recognised copyright law as a more robust source of protection for entities facing similar situations.

Conclusion

Fluid Trademarks might be the future of brand building. They have indeed emerged as an excellent tool for businesses across the globe to engage and interact with their customers while simultaneously allowing them to keep in touch with ongoing trends. But as long as the legislature or the judiciary steps up and develops a robust set of guidelines for their protection, it would be feasible to work with an experienced IP attorney who could assist applicants to come up with a smarter plan of action for the protection of their dynamic and ‘fluid’ marks.