Source: yourstory.com
A city’s
logo is a culmination of its identity, aspirations and everything
that it represents. A logo, thereby, becomes a beacon via which tourists, travelers,
and even citizens identify the city of their choice. However, such creative
representation becomes and is the property of the city that creates it and thus
becomes responsible to ensure the protection of such creativity and eventually,
intellectual property. Hence, it becomes essential for the city’s authorities
to ensure that they can exercise the right to use a representation of their
home without it being misused by third party infringers. However, out of all
cities in the world that do boast of logos, a fraction have sought to
protect themselves by registering it!
Above: City Logos filed as trademarks/
protected from around the world
However,
in most developing countries where, due to the proximity of manufacturing
industries, there is an abundance of counterfeit markets, it is an absolute
necessity to register trademarks in order to ensure that merchandising
revenues find their way to the right coffers. Japan is a good example of the
same, having filed and received a registration for its city logo in
anticipation of the 2020 Olympics. Events of such magnitude cause a resurgence
of counterfeit merchandize, as has been discussed with a case study below. As
of 2017, the city of Bengaluru has joined the ranks of other well-known
tourist destinations such as Singapore, London, and New York City and became
the first Indian city to boast of a logo of its own. It was unveiled at the
Nammo Bengaluru Habbo festival by Karnataka Tourism Minister Priyank
Kharge. The logo in question is one that has been crowd sourced from over 1350
entries and reads “Be U,” which is a mix of typography in English and Kannada. The
logo was designed by Nammur, a design start-up that won a contest and received
a prize money of INR 5 lakhs. The idea of the logo is that it is meant to be
easily pronounced, associated with everyone and be a representation of the kind
of self-expression and acceptance that is associated with the city.
Coming
with an option of colors (green, yellow and red), the logo is intended to
further tourism and be replicated on all types of merchandise. The theory here
is that a design that comes from the people is representative of the spirit of
the city and thus putting it on souvenirs and merchandise that can be bought is
a reminder of the city to everyone who visits it. The entire philosophy behind
creation and city logos is centered around the creation of a brand that
represents the city, its people and the values it stands for (Amsterdam’s I AM
logo which was revamped as a reminder of the city’s culturally inclusive
philosophies). Not only is this likely to boost the morale of the city, but
will also create an industry around the licensing and manufacturing of
t-shirts, mugs, and other city-specific memorabilia.
However, as are with all creations, all ideas instituted to
bolster economies require protection from those who seek to benefit from their
unauthorized usage. The creation of a distinctive logo and exclusive
merchandise for the city also comes with a window of opportunity for counterfeit
markets to take root and exploit the intellectual property of the
city. Thereby, a Trademark of the logo accompanied by acquisition of the consequent
merchandising rights is a must if one aims to boost the city and state’s tourism.
Registration of the trademark as exclusive property of the
city is a given necessity. However, merchandising while using such
registrations is an equally essential avenue that needs to be explored. Aside
from being an effective tool to guard IP, it is also an invaluable marketing
tool as it gives the merchandised goods’ owners the distinct feeling of
belonging and ownership that the city aims to inspire. Similarly, it can also
be licensed out to third party manufacturers for mass production of
merchandise. Due to the novelty of city brand logos, the practice neither of
its creation nor its IPR protection has been seen before. However,
reference can be drawn from the Citywide Merchandise Licensing
Program carried out by NYC & Company, which provides licensing rights
for the City and its agencies. While allowing each of the individual agency the
discretion of issuing its licensing rights to third parties, it ensured
registration and crackdown of counterfeits across the city, leading to almost
600 cease and desist orders to vendors. This was all in response to an
increasing culture of counterfeit goods that had been produced featuring the
City’s agencies, specifically the New York City Police Department (NYPD) and
the Fire Department of the City of New York (FDNY), due to their inconsistent
licensing policies and lack of action against counterfeiters.
Here is a
list of certain city departments, which are registered as trademarks with United
States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
However,
in the same spectrum the government cannot endeavor or be allowed to gain the rights
over every aspect of the city – especially a city that belongs to its people
first. In a case where the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
(PA) took the souvenir shop Fishs Eddy to court for their representation
of the New York Skyline and other signature landmarks of the city on their
dinnerware, stating it “interferes with the Port Authority’s control of its own
reputation” and may create an association with the 9/11 attacks. The authority
dropped the matter a little while after, possibly understanding that legal action
would have to be taken against the thousands of souvenir shops selling similar
merchandise for their actions to prove successful.
No comments:
Post a Comment