Whose Brand Is It, Anyway?

Tweet

But it was only one of many names that came out of the session, several of which were also appealing. The debate continued as the trademark searches were being done. "We went back and forth on the name a lot," says Walsh. Eventually, the lawyers reported back that Glow could be used but that it was highly unlikely that Lopez could ever trademark the name or keep others from using it. According to Walsh, the lawyers strongly recommended that Glow be attached to J.Lo, because Glow by J.Lo -- they said -- was a protectable trademark.

So the issue was settled just in time to shoot the advertising campaign in the third week of February. Meanwhile, the juice was being mixed and shipped to Lancaster's manufacturing facility in Monaco. Point-of-purchase materials such as posters and shopping bags were being produced. Boxes were being turned out by the thousands, each covered with a special coating meant to be "sensual like her skin," as the ads later said. By May, filled bottles were rolling off the production line, with the J.Lo pendant applied to each by hand.

Throughout the spring and into the summer, the operation gained momentum, rolling toward its September deadline. It was a mammoth and expensive enterprise. Before Lancaster had a signed contract, it had invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in Glow by J.Lo -- most of it spent on shooting the ads and creating the tooling to make the bottles. By the time the fragrance was introduced to the press on June 27, total expenditures on advertising and development alone came to more than $2 million. The first shipments to stores went out the following day. And then, in early July, the letter from Terri Williamson's lawyer arrived -- and caused considerable alarm.

"Gee, Did They Do Their Homework?"

Williamson was still thinking the matter could be resolved quickly and amicably when her trademark lawyer wrote to Lopez's trademark lawyer on July 3, asserting that there was already a Glow in existence and that its owner didn't want someone else using the name. On July 31, Williamson received a reply in the form of a stack of material documenting the large number of trademarked beauty products that had the word glow in their names -- Amber Glow, Ultra Glow, Fresh Glow, and so on. The message was clear: Lopez and Coty had every intention of proceeding with Glow by J.Lo.

And yet, even then, Williamson didn't fully comprehend just how big a problem she was facing. "I was in denial," she says. "A lot depended on how prominently they were planning to use the word glow." She soon found out. On August 2, her retail partner in Florida sent her another magazine article on Lopez's new fragrance, including photographs from the upcoming advertising campaign. What stood out, in large orange letters, was one word: Glow. Even the typeface was similar. Williamson stared at the photo, and her heart sank. Suddenly it all hit her. What store would carry her Glow products if it also had Glow by J.Lo? The confusion would hurt sales of both and create all kinds of customer-service headaches. Given the number of retailers that were likely to carry Lopez's perfume, Williamson's Glow could well be shut out of a large portion of the market.

On August 7, 2002, Glow Industries -- the company's formal name -- filed suit against Jennifer Lopez, Coty, and various unnamed parties, alleging trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and unfair competition. Within hours, the news spread through the industry, making a lot of people nervous. "I was definitely concerned," says Hal Kahn, chairman of Macy's East -- which is, among department stores, the largest fragrance retailer in the country. "My question was, 'Gee, did they do their homework?' I didn't care about the name. If they changed the name to Chopped Liver, I couldn't care less, as long as it's Chopped Liver by J.Lo. I was just worried that they would be blocked in their marketing campaign for Christmas. They might have to kill all the ads."

In Paris, Catherine Walsh had even bigger concerns. Not only had huge amounts of advertising been purchased, but tons of product were being shipped to stores in the United States and more than 15 other countries. Enough articles had already appeared in magazines and newspapers to fill three enormous binders in her office. Changing the name at that point would cost a fortune, if it could be done at all.

In any event, Walsh's lawyers assured her it wasn't necessary. There were simply too many products out there, they insisted, with the word glow in their names. But the lawyers did think it would be prudent to make sure the complete phrase Glow by J.Lo, rather than Glow alone, appeared in all the advertising -- which was a bit of a problem. Ads had already been produced and placed that used just the word Glow. Walsh says those ads were pulled, although Williamson insists they continued to appear throughout the fall.

While the legal battle lines were being drawn, shipments of Glow by J.Lo were arriving in store warehouses. The first bottles were due to go on sale in Macy's at the end of August, with the national rollout beginning on September 1. As the launch approached, Walsh felt excitement laced with anxiety. "As much as we all believed in the product," she says, "as much as we thought everything was right -- the juice, the box, the price point, the ads -- there's always that anticipation."

 PREV  1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12  NEXT 

Read more:

Bo Burlingham

Burlingham joined Inc. in 1983. An editor at large, he is the author of Small Giants: Companies That Choose to Be Great Instead of Big. The book was a finalist for the Financial Times/Goldman Sachs Business Book of the Year Award in 2006. Burlingham is also the co-author with Norm Brodsky of The Knack; and the co-author with Jack Stack of The Great Game of Business and A Stake in the Outcome.

Sign-up for our Sales and Marketing Newsletter

Email Address: